This is going to be more exciting than the MLB pennant races!
QuoteGovernment shutdown moves closer to reality
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane, washingtonpost.com Updated: Tuesday, September 17, 9:07 PM
The threat of a government shutdown intensified Tuesday as House Republican leaders moved toward stripping funding from President Obama's landmark health-care initiative and setting up a stalemate with the Democratic Senate.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) had hoped to keep the government open past Sept. 30 with relatively little fuss. But roughly 40 conservatives revolted. After a strategy session Tuesday, Boehner and his leadership team were being pushed into a more confrontational strategy that would fund the government into the new fiscal year only if Democrats agreed to undermine Obama's signature legislative achievement.
Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have ruled that out, leaving the parties hurtling toward an apparent impasse.
In less than two weeks — with the nation at war and authorities investigating a mass shooting at Washington's Navy Yard — every federal agency from the Pentagon to the FBI is due to shut down unless Congress can reach an agreement. A shutdown would not only disrupt critical government services but also whip up a panic just as lawmakers confront the next major deadline on their fall calendar: the need to raise the $16.7 trillion federal debt limit.
Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf said Tuesday that the Treasury Department is likely to run out of cash to pay its bills "sometime between late October and mid-November," confirming independent estimates. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has so far been vague about that deadline, telling Congress only that he would exhaust his ability to juggle the books by mid-October.
Despite the risk of widespread economic turmoil, political leaders have yet to begin talks to resolve the impasse. Obama has repeatedly said he would not negotiate over the debt limit, arguing that it is the responsibility of Congress to make sure the Treasury can pay bills incurred by past Congresses. Last month, the White House and a group of Senate Republicans agreed to suspend discussions about a broader budget deal.
Meanwhile, both Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have said it's up to the House to make the first move to keep the government open. Reid on Tuesday called on Boehner to resist "this relentless obstruction . . . led and directed by the tea party."
"None of the Republicans are willing to stand up to these anarchists," Reid told reporters. Of the law known as Obamacare, he added: "They're obsessed with a bill that passed four years ago, a bill that was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. They can't get over that."
Even many Republicans have expressed frustration with the right wing's fixation on the health-care law, which is intended to make insurance affordable to millions of additional Americans. People are due to begin signing up with new state-run insurance exchanges Oct. 1 and will be eligible for new federal subsidies in 2014.
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and a band of House conservatives are leading the charge to block implementation of the law, along with outside groups such as Heritage Action for America and the Club for Growth. On Tuesday, the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which is influential in the GOP, urged them to stand down.
"The problem is that Mr. Obama is never, ever going to unwind his signature legacy project of national health care. Ideology aside, it would end his Presidency politically," the paper wrote. It warned that voters may well blame Republicans for a shutdown given that "the repeal-or-bust crowd provoked the confrontation."
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a strong supporter of the defund strategy, dismissed the criticism, which has also come from senior Republican lawmakers and strategists.
"All that really matters is what my district wants," Massie said. "And my district is overwhelmingly in favor of my position."
Upon returning to Washington after a long weekend at home, Boehner and his leadership team met for an hour Tuesday afternoon in the Capitol. Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement that no decisions about strategy "have been made, or will be made, until House Republican members meet and talk tomorrow" morning.
But other participants in the meeting said it became clear that a government-funding plan unveiled last week by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), which would have avoided a showdown over Obamacare, could not rally enough GOP votes.
"It was not [well] received in the conference," said Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who attended Tuesday's meeting representing the massive freshman class of Republicans elected in 2010. Instead, Southerland said, GOP leaders were leaning toward satisfying their right wing, fully aware that such a move would invite rejection in the Senate.
The Senate, then, would be likely to respond with its own funding plan that jettisoned the anti-Obamacare provisions. Senate Democrats could also make other changes, such as rolling back some of the automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, that Republicans view as their most significant recent legislative achievement.
That would leave the House to make an eleventh-hour decision: Swallow the Senate's changes or shut the government down.
"I wouldn't stow away our ping-pong paddles," Southerland quipped grimly.
As the wrangling continued, people in both parties worried that House Republicans would prove unable to unite around any strategy, leaving the nation's fiscal well-being at risk.
I wanna see if the Anti-Obama fanatics really have the balls the suicide bomb the government.
Again? :yawn:
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 11:01:50 PM
Again? :yawn:
Ditto. But hey, it helps Seedy get out of bed in the morning, so I'll play along.
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2013, 11:11:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 11:01:50 PM
Again? :yawn:
Ditto. But hey, it helps Seedy get out of bed in the morning, so I'll play along.
You really can be quite sweet. Now if only you didn't hate women. :(
I love women a hell of a lot more than you do :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2013, 11:11:33 PM
But hey, it helps Seedy get out of bed in the morning, so I'll play along.
Come on, the government shutdown will be more fun to watch than another mass shooting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2013, 12:33:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2013, 11:11:33 PM
But hey, it helps Seedy get out of bed in the morning, so I'll play along.
Come on, the government shutdown will be more fun to watch than another mass shooting.
If it were not for the debt ceiling I would be happy to see them shutdown government. Maybe it would jolt some of the house members into reality.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 09:09:20 PM
This is going to be more exciting than the MLB pennant races!
Ok, but does it beat washing one's hair?
:yawn:
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 12:20:33 AM
I love women a hell of a lot more than you do :contract:
There is a difference between lust and love.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:28:38 AM
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2013, 08:42:51 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:28:38 AM
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
:lol:
I don't really understand the glee from mongers, if he thinks that is true.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:28:38 AM
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
How is this relevant?
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 08:48:11 AM
I don't really understand the glee from mongers, if he thinks that is true.
I can understand the glee much easier than I can the logic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2013, 08:58:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 08:48:11 AM
I don't really understand the glee from mongers, if he thinks that is true.
I can understand the glee much easier than I can the logic.
Sure, but the glee also doesn't make sense. I don't see how that would be a positive for someone in the UK.
It's simple schadenfreude.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:28:38 AM
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
100 years is a pretty good run.
I wonder if they could schedule this shutdown and give me a few days off when the PS4 and Call Of Duty Ghosts comes out? :hmm:
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 18, 2013, 10:24:41 AM
I wonder if they could schedule this shutdown and give me a few days off when the PS4 and Call Of Duty Ghosts comes out? :hmm:
Righteous Slaughter 7? :w00t:
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2013, 10:14:47 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:28:38 AM
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
100 years is a pretty good run.
Yeah, better than most. Not as good as the big boys but, as you say, they had a good run.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 08:34:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 12:20:33 AM
I love women a hell of a lot more than you do :contract:
There is a difference between lust and love.
Pshaw. I love and admire women and agree they are the superior sex.
To quote HL Mencken:
QuoteI am convinced that the average woman, whatever her deficiencies, is greatly superior to the average man. The very ease with which she defies and swindles him in several capital situations of life is the clearest of proofs of her general superiority.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 10:53:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 08:34:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 12:20:33 AM
I love women a hell of a lot more than you do :contract:
There is a difference between lust and love.
Pshaw. I love and admire women and agree they are the superior sex.
To quote HL Mencken:
QuoteI am convinced that the average woman, whatever her deficiencies, is greatly superior to the average man. The very ease with which she defies and swindles him in several capital situations of life is the clearest of proofs of her general superiority.
I suppose that makes sense when one clings to outmoded notions of gender.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 08:48:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2013, 08:42:51 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:28:38 AM
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
:lol:
I don't really understand the glee from mongers, if he thinks that is true.
Where do you get the glee from, I just posed a question based on a prediction I'm making.
Trust me I'm not at all happy that within our own lifetimes were looking at the possibility that the Chinese communist party is The power in the world. <_<
And actually I think you can guess, it's with some disappointment that I say the above because today's America could be so much better than it is, a lot of resources have been wasted in the last 40 years and potential improvements missed.
So to my mind round 3, or whatever it is, of this stupid political game is just another example of the pissing away of political and legislative capital in the USA.
I'm still waiting for Oklahoman independence.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 09:09:20 PM
This is going to be more exciting than the MLB pennant races!
Much of the same Sparky.
Posturing, Blustering, typical high drama from those shitbags on The Hill and White house. :yawn:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
I'm still waiting for Oklahoman independence.
Is that feeling similar to the 'secret'* feeling us English have towards Scottish independence ? :bowler:
* It's a sort of shush, no one say anything or get into the debate in anyway and hopefully they'll separate from us in a burst of 'sunlit uplands' fervour.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
I'm still waiting for Oklahoman independence.
Is that feeling similar to the 'secret'* feeling us English have towards Scottish independence ? :bowler:
* It's a sort of shush, no one say anything or get into the debate in anyway and hopefully they'll separate from us in a burst of 'sunlit uplands' fervour.
No, it's I'm still waiting for the collapse of America that was supposed to happen 5 years ago.
And the Oklahoma thing was Martim 'rapey' Silva's BS.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 06:20:03 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
I'm still waiting for Oklahoman independence.
Is that feeling similar to the 'secret'* feeling us English have towards Scottish independence ? :bowler:
* It's a sort of shush, no one say anything or get into the debate in anyway and hopefully they'll separate from us in a burst of 'sunlit uplands' fervour.
No, it's I'm still waiting for the collapse of America that was supposed to happen 5 years ago.
And the Oklahoma thing was Martim 'rapey' Silva's BS.
Who was predicting that ?
Still can't remember the Oklahoma thing.
Various shitheads on the Internet.
Oklahoma was part of Martim's greatest hits. Like Grant owned slaves as President and my favorite, French restaurants being forced to close across America by the US government.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:31:53 PM
Where do you get the glee from, I just posed a question based on a prediction I'm making.
Trust me I'm not at all happy that within our own lifetimes were looking at the possibility that the Chinese communist party is The power in the world. <_<
And actually I think you can guess, it's with some disappointment that I say the above because today's America could be so much better than it is, a lot of resources have been wasted in the last 40 years and potential improvements missed.
So to my mind round 3, or whatever it is, of this stupid political game is just another example of the pissing away of political and legislative capital in the USA.
The thing is, the US still is the hub around which the the rest of the world economy spins. If the US economy collapses, then so does the rest of the world's. It would hit the world worse then 1928 did. I imagine the Chinese would be in worse trouble then the US due to the unstable nature of a one party government.
My view is that of course they need to raise the debt ceiling to keep things going but what's greatly needed is to then address the fiscal issues very seriously. I'm more concerned over the casual attitude by too many politicians of the continuing increase in the massive debt, about 17 trillion dollars now. That figure is absolutely astounding, and should unnerve all of us. Not blaming either party since all are responsible for it and the poor economy shares the blame as well, but the spending has to be looked at and something done. We need some taxes too but we could tax all the wealthy of all they earn and still wouldn't put too much of a dent in this debt. I keep seeing reports that in a few years the government will have a hard time just paying the interest on the debt. This is a major issue for the country and when we talk about the power of the US domestically or abroad, being so heavily in debt is hugely limiting in so many ways.
Our feckless politicians don't do much, sadly. Those who try to address it get slammed by the opposing party. Even a sequester of a few percent was greeted as the end of government as we know it! And even the sequester was setup in the worst possible way to require agencies to cut across the board, not streamline spending nor cut back where they could cleanly do so. Yet the ramifications of sequester have been rather lame instead, and included some grandstanding by a few govt agencies to try and make sure that even this tiny cutback was felt by taxpayers. I can't imagine what will happen if this government ever tries to seriously reign in costs, including the raising of taxes to help balance finances out. We've already had a lot of noise over these issues and the gnashing of teeth and acrimony have been pretty huge, preventing anything from getting done as this fiscal nightmare continues.
The deficit's gone from over 10% of GDP in 2009 to around 5.5% now, on current trends going to 3.5% next year and 2% by 2015. Your politicians have done too much too quickly. They weren't feckless but they did panic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 19, 2013, 10:01:49 AM
The deficit's gone from over 10% of GDP in 2009 to around 5.5% now, on current trends going to 3.5% next year and 2% by 2015. Your politicians have done too much too quickly. They weren't feckless but they did panic.
Agreed. Just doubling the national debt was wimpy; we should have gone for a triple or a quadruple. Interest rates are going to stay at 2% forever. Unemployment at 7.5% is genocide.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 07:05:24 PM
Various shitheads on the Internet.
Oklahoma was part of Martim's greatest hits. Like Grant owned slaves as President and my favorite, French restaurants being forced to close across America by the US government.
I thought it was some Russian professor. He was predicting a fracturing of the US that looked kind of like the Shadowrun map.
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 07:05:24 PM
Various shitheads on the Internet.
Oklahoma was part of Martim's greatest hits. Like Grant owned slaves as President and my favorite, French restaurants being forced to close across America by the US government.
I thought it was some Russian professor. He was predicting a fracturing of the US that looked kind of like the Shadowrun map.
Actually he's Timmay's Eastern European 2nd cousin.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:28:38 AM
How often before has a leading world power pissed away it's hegemony this quickly?
France, maybe. But that's unfair to France, since they were actively and physically challenged for three decades by the five runners-up.
Quote from: KRonn on September 19, 2013, 08:37:48 AM
We need some taxes too but we could tax all the wealthy of all they earn and still wouldn't put too much of a dent in this debt.
$8.01 trillion wouldn't put a dent in it? I think it might.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 03:53:59 PM
$8.01 trillion wouldn't put a dent in it? I think it might.
I sincerely doubt that the wealthy earn 8 trillion a year.
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 07:05:24 PM
Various shitheads on the Internet.
Oklahoma was part of Martim's greatest hits. Like Grant owned slaves as President and my favorite, French restaurants being forced to close across America by the US government.
I thought it was some Russian professor. He was predicting a fracturing of the US that looked kind of like the Shadowrun map.
Not even that weak shit.
The BRICS are the future man! America is the past! bullshit.
It's definitely in the trillions. What figure should I multiply the 48% share the top 10% receive by? GDP? GDI?
Ah, you're counting top 10% as wealthy.
That makes the number bigger.
But even the top 400 Americans, if nationalized, would do significant damage to the debt.
CNN had two GOP House members on, Peter King and some dude from Wisconsin, both saying the chances of a shutdown are zero.
Cheese Head was saying the point of the exercise was to give GOP Senators a chance to try to cut a deal with Harry Reid (ha) and the subtext was a chance to go on the record opposing Obamacare.
I'd like to nationalize Ide. He could be put to work on my estates.
I'd feed Ide, but only healthy foods.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 19, 2013, 05:04:47 PM
I'd feed Ide, but only healthy foods.
The shock to his system might kill him.
Send him down here on weekends to clear brush in my wooded area & bundle sticks for kindling. I'll play The Internationale on my backyard speakers to keep him motivated.
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:36:10 PM
Send him down here on weekends to clear brush in my wooded area & bundle sticks for kindling. I'll play The Internationale on my backyard speakers to keep him motivated.
Ok. But no junk food.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 19, 2013, 06:39:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:36:10 PM
Send him down here on weekends to clear brush in my wooded area & bundle sticks for kindling. I'll play The Internationale on my backyard speakers to keep him motivated.
Ok. But no junk food.
Fine. I'll have my neighbor's vegan wife feed you the nasty crap she eats.
If he escapes north I will feed him chips in return for working my land.
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:47:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 19, 2013, 06:39:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:36:10 PM
Send him down here on weekends to clear brush in my wooded area & bundle sticks for kindling. I'll play The Internationale on my backyard speakers to keep him motivated.
Ok. But no junk food.
Fine. I'll have my neighbor's vegan wife feed you the nasty crap she eats.
I don't want that shit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 19, 2013, 07:05:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:47:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 19, 2013, 06:39:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:36:10 PM
Send him down here on weekends to clear brush in my wooded area & bundle sticks for kindling. I'll play The Internationale on my backyard speakers to keep him motivated.
Ok. But no junk food.
Fine. I'll have my neighbor's vegan wife feed you the nasty crap she eats.
I don't want that shit.
I thought we were talking about Ide.
You said you. So I assumed me. Pronoun troubles.
Oops. I'm going on very little sleep here.
I'm yawning too.
Who're you calling lumpen!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2013, 03:14:04 PM
Agreed. Just doubling the national debt was wimpy; we should have gone for a triple or a quadruple.
National debt's currently at 73%. The CBO say it will only reach 100% in 25 years - not as people were hyperventilating, any time soon. There was no need to panic. Admittedly maybe panicked deals are the only possible way Congress can work, so there was no chance of the deficit being cut more sensibly.
Economist said 105 now.
Tuesday's CBO release said 73% reaching 100% in 2038 (which is absurd anyway). Current deficit's around 4%. By 2038 net interest would cost 5% of GDP.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=812526&utm_campaign=0
Maybe the Economist are including state and local debt? :mellow:
Edit: Also their more short-term (and useful) projection is that the national debt will rise for a couple more years then start falling, so by 2018 should be around 68%.
Your link is talking about "federal debt held by the public." I.e. not including IOUs in teh lock box.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2013, 12:17:16 AM
Your link is talking about "federal debt held by the public." I.e. not including IOUs in teh lock box.
How is that a relevant measure of the government's net debt position?
That would be like saying I have net worth of -$20 if I had a 20 in my right pocket and an IOU for 20 in my left.
I think Eric Cantor actually had an orgasm during the rally/announcement. His face contorted in a manner that either suggested an orgasm or a bowel movement.
QuoteHouse votes to fund government, gut Obamacare
By Michael O'Brien , Political Reporter, NBC News
The House approved legislation on Friday to keep the government open past Sept. 30, but also to eliminate funding for "Obamacare."
The vote marked an opening gambit by the GOP just 10 days before the deadline at which the government will run out of money, causing a myriad of federal services to cease. The provision gutting health care reform was intended to mollify conservatives who have vowed not to fund the government unless the landmark law is eradicated.
But the measure faces almost certain doom in the Senate, where Democrats have said they would vote to restore funding for the Affordable Care Act. And even if they were to fail, President Barack Obama has flatly promised to veto the bill.
The posturing by the Republican-controlled House means Washington now faces a narrow window of opportunity to reach an ever-elusive consensus over how to continue government operations, and avoid a politically-costly shutdown.
If no resolution is reached, a shutdown threatens to harm the economy and place scores of government workers out of work for an undetermined period of time. Wall Street appeared unconcerned by the developments, though, expecting lawmakers to reach an 11th-hour accord as they have in virtually every previous showdown.
Still, Friday's vote set up a tense series of negotiations between Obama, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate over the next 10 days. The House has canceled a planned recess next week in anticipation of the frenetic work it will take to cobble together a compromise to keep the government open that can win the support of Congress.
The vote was set for late morning, and was expected to pass only with the votes of Republicans.
As the GOP readied the vote, Obama traveled to Kansas, where he was expected to sharply denounce the GOP's approach to the fiscal impasse.
"The last thing we can afford right now is a decision by a minority of Republicans in Congress to throw our economy back into crisis by refusing to pay our country's bills or shutting down the government," said a White House official. "Instead of playing politics with the economy, Republicans in Congress should join the president to focus on creating a better bargain for the middle class."
The action will next play out in the Senate, where Democrats command a majority of votes. The upper chamber is expected to strip any measure to undermine the Affordable Care Act from the House-passed bill, though that has invited a filibuster threat from some hard-lined conservative senators.
But if history is any guide, several Senate Republicans -- at least 13 of whom have openly disparaged the effort to use the threat of a government shutdown as leverage to defund Obamacare -- may work to assemble a compromise spending measure to send back to the House. That could provide the contours of an eventual agreement.
Still looming, though, is the more politically-tricky prospect of having to authorize increased government borrowing -- known as the debt limit -- sometime next month. Republicans met Friday morning to discuss their strategy in that fight, and have long signaled they might seek a more modest, one-year delay of "Obamacare" in exchange for raising the debt limit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 08:53:44 AM
How is that a relevant measure of the government's net debt position?
That would be like saying I have net worth of -$20 if I had a 20 in my right pocket and an IOU for 20 in my left.
That's a terrible analogy Joan. The US has total liabilities -$105, $73 in the form of debt held by the public, and $32 in the form of IOUs to future retirees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2013, 12:07:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 08:53:44 AM
How is that a relevant measure of the government's net debt position?
That would be like saying I have net worth of -$20 if I had a 20 in my right pocket and an IOU for 20 in my left.
That's a terrible analogy Joan. The US has total liabilities -$105, $73 in the form of debt held by the public, and $32 in the form of IOUs to future retirees.
Not so. The 32 is an IOU to the pay the bearer the coupon and principal on the dates specified. Nothing more. And the bearer is another arm of the government. The asset and liability is identical and held be the same person. They offet.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 12:45:52 PM
Not so. The 32 is an IOU to the pay the bearer the coupon and principal on the dates specified. Nothing more. And the bearer is another arm of the government. The asset and liability is identical and held be the same person. They offet.
They offset except for the $32 IOU the other arm of the government has to Baby Boomers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2013, 12:56:40 PM
They offset except for the $32 IOU the other arm of the government has to Baby Boomers.
There is no such thing. SS is a pay-as-you go program; always has been.
However you want to characterize the commitment to future retirees; it is not "debt".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 01:20:30 PM
There is no such thing. SS is a pay-as-you go program; always has been.
However you want to characterize the commitment to future retirees; it is not "debt".
The first statement is manifestly incorrect. The Algore trust fund specifically paid more than we went.
If you want to get technical and say the future liability is not debt, then neither can you call the trust fund an asset.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2013, 01:34:01 PM
The first statement is manifestly incorrect. The Algore trust fund specifically paid more than we went.
Al Gore did nothing I am aware of relating to the trust funds and as a single Senator and later VP he couldn't have.
The trust fund concept is essentially rhetorical and devoid of substance, and budgetary accounting correctly treats it as such.
QuoteIf you want to get technical and say the future liability is not debt, then neither can you call the trust fund an asset.
Exactly, except there is nothing technical about it.
Then it appears we agree. The US has gross debt of 105% of GDP, and no offsetting assets.
Ys you need to work on your if ... then constructions.
Either the trust fund holdings of US debt can be considered a net asset, and can be offset on gross debt to derive net debt, or it can't. I thought you agreed that it can't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2013, 03:04:30 AM
Either the trust fund holdings of US debt can be considered a net asset, and can be offset on gross debt to derive net debt, or it can't. I thought you agreed that it can't.
IWhat we agreed is the "the future liability is not debt" and "neither can you call the trust fund an asset"
So if you are doing the latter, you must also do the former, and thus debt is the 70s not over 100.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 04:31:32 PM
That makes the number bigger.
But even the top 400 Americans, if nationalized, would do significant damage to the debt.
But how much money do we want to take from taxpayers? What would that do to the economy? Yes, we need taxes but we also need changes to spending. It doesn't have to be draconian cuts nor taxes, but they should start with small changes. Pres Obama tried a small amount of that by moving to eliminate some duplication in Fed agencies, but even some of that came up against opposition in Congress. The sequester which was a small cutback caused massive consternation by Congress, and the President, when that amount of money should easily be able to be cut.
A couple years ago Congress and the Administration put a plan out to cut the budget. After much angst they managed to cut about 35 billion, an insignificant amount in a 1.3 trillion dollar budget. And even that they wound up not really cutting.
So much wasted in interest on the debt and wasteful programs. Of course cuts can be made and taxes raised, the tax code changed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2013, 12:17:16 AM
Your link is talking about "federal debt held by the public." I.e. not including IOUs in teh lock box.
I agree with Joan. We've had the whole trust fund conversation before. They're future liabilities - on current policies - for the government, not a debt.
Quote from: KRonn on September 23, 2013, 10:19:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 04:31:32 PM
That makes the number bigger.
But even the top 400 Americans, if nationalized, would do significant damage to the debt.
But how much money do we want to take from taxpayers? What would that do to the economy?
Turn it into a power capable of going toe-to-toe with the Russkis in nuclear combat while simultaneously supporting the greatest expansion of material prosperity in the history of Earth?
Higher top rates literally do not matter except in terms of revenue generation. The incentive for people at the top of the economy is not more money in itself; money is only a token of something else, namely the illusion of control over their environment. They'll continue to do their jobs, and even if they don't, someone else will with no real difference in quality of output. No one is more replaceable than a billionaire.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 09:07:12 AM
IWhat we agreed is the "the future liability is not debt" and "neither can you call the trust fund an asset"
So if you are doing the latter, you must also do the former, and thus debt is the 70s not over 100.
Gross debt is 105. The only way you can get down to 73 is if there is an asset to offset. If we agree that the Social Security trust fund is not an asset, there is nothing to offset, and we are left with gross debt of 105.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2013, 10:23:31 AM
I agree with Joan. We've had the whole trust fund conversation before. They're future liabilities - on current policies - for the government, not a debt.
Right. But the bonds issued by the Treasury and bought by the trust fund are debt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2013, 12:50:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 09:07:12 AM
IWhat we agreed is the "the future liability is not debt" and "neither can you call the trust fund an asset"
So if you are doing the latter, you must also do the former, and thus debt is the 70s not over 100.
Gross debt is 105. The only way you can get down to 73 is if there is an asset to offset. If we agree that the Social Security trust fund is not an asset, there is nothing to offset, and we are left with gross debt of 105.
Total US debt is $16.7t, with $11.95t as public debt and $4.75t as intragovernment debt (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current). For accounting purposes, intragovernment debt doesn't count (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/debtbasics.html#difference) because it does in fact count as an asset for the portion of the government that holds it.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 23, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
Total US debt is $16.7t, with $11.95t as public debt and $4.75t as intragovernment debt (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current). For accounting purposes, intragovernment debt doesn't count (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/debtbasics.html#difference) because it does in fact count as an asset for the portion of the government that holds it.
The trust fund is legally committed to pay future retiree benefits. It can not be liquidated to pay off other commitments. It is not an asset of the US government in any meaningful sense of the word.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2013, 01:28:26 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 23, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
Total US debt is $16.7t, with $11.95t as public debt and $4.75t as intragovernment debt (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current). For accounting purposes, intragovernment debt doesn't count (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/debtbasics.html#difference) because it does in fact count as an asset for the portion of the government that holds it.
The trust fund is legally committed to pay future retiree benefits. It can not be liquidated to pay off other commitments. It is not an asset of the US government in any meaningful sense of the word.
So if the House of Representatives and the Senate passes a law that says "in 2113 we're going to spend $200t on spaceships and free burgers" and Obama signs it into law, then the the US debt is suddenly $220t?
That doesn't make sense, Yi.
I mean, if I owe $20,000 to the bank that's my debt. My Netflix subscription, my annual contribution to the Red Cross, my monthly grocery budget, and the future tuition fees for my kids are not counted as debt no matter how much I've promised my wife we'll spend that money.
... it sounds like you're inflating the numbers for rhetorical purposes.
I think Yi's arguing that he's paid those bills in advance.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2013, 01:42:59 PM
I think Yi's arguing that he's paid those bills in advance.
But he hasn't. He's just put some small bills and some pencilled IOUs to himself into labelled envelopes on the mantelpiece.
Quote from: Jacob on September 23, 2013, 01:40:21 PM
... it sounds like you're inflating the numbers for rhetorical purposes.
Or alternatively you're trying to minimize it for rhetorical or other purposes.
It sounds like you're confusing the future liabilities of the trust fund (which I agreed with Joan are not "debt") with the bonds issued by the Treasury and purchased by the trust fund, which are debt.
Imagine the US fiscal position in the absence of a Social Security trust fund. The US would have total debt of 73% of GDP, and an unfunded future liability of 32% of GDP (let's assume for the sake of argument that the trust fund equals unfunded liability). The Boomers start to retire, and what do we do? Act surprised? Raise taxes or cut spending, or run up the deficit, or default.
In the past when media reported on national debt it was commonplace to report two numbers: debt, and debt plus unfunded liabilities. At some point they stopped doing so, and it appears to me that they reason they have is because what the lock box did was to formally, legally incorporate unfunded liabilities into the debt.
So in the context of austerity/stimulus spending/etc., etc., we have two choices: we can pretend we have a debt of 73% and go on a spending spree to bring down those last two points of unemployment, then act dismayed and surprised when the deficit soars when Boomers retire, or we say with total debt of 105% of GDP any further deficit spending at this point should be handled very carefully, and not be surprised and dismayed when the Boomers retire.
I'm speculating a bit here (maybe Joan could shed some light), but I would also be very surprised if the Congress and president could pass a law stating that those bonds in the trust fund no longer exist.
Quote from: Jacob on September 23, 2013, 01:46:20 PM
But he hasn't. He's just put some small bills and some pencilled IOUs to himself into labelled envelopes on the mantelpiece.
I haven't put anything anywhere. Bill Clinton put 4.75 trillion in an envelope on the mantelpiece to pay for future expenses he knew were going to occur.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2013, 12:50:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 09:07:12 AM
IWhat we agreed is the "the future liability is not debt" and "neither can you call the trust fund an asset"
So if you are doing the latter, you must also do the former, and thus debt is the 70s not over 100.
Gross debt is 105. The only way you can get down to 73 is if there is an asset to offset. If we agree that the Social Security trust fund is not an asset, there is nothing to offset, and we are left with gross debt of 105.
You just agreed that if the trust fund is not an asset, then the Treasury obligations are not debt. If . . . then
Not debt cannot be counted as debt. You accept the if clause but then deny the "then" clause.
They are both on the same balance sheet and held by the same US government. If you count the 32 as "gross debt" you have to recognize the corresponding asset on the books. Correspondingly, if you recognize the trust fund account as an asset, you have to recognize the offsetting obligation. The rational thing to do is to recognize this is just internal paper entries and disregard.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 02:21:29 PM
You just agreed that if the trust fund is not an asset, then the Treasury obligations are not debt.
I did nothing of the sort. :huh:
I agreed that future liabilities to retirees is not debt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2013, 02:07:40 PM
It sounds like you're confusing the future liabilities of the trust fund (which I agreed with Joan are not "debt") with the bonds issued by the Treasury and purchased by the trust fund, which are debt.
Respectfully, that is exactly what you are doing.
To wit:
QuoteImagine the US fiscal position in the absence of a Social Security trust fund. The US would have total debt of 73% of GDP, and an unfunded future liability of 32% of GDP (let's assume for the sake of argument that the trust fund equals unfunded liability).
But unfunded future pension liabilities are not debt.
QuoteIn the past when media reported on national debt it was commonplace to report two numbers: debt, and debt plus unfunded liabilities. At some point they stopped doing so, and it appears to me that they reason they have is because what the lock box did was to formally, legally incorporate unfunded liabilities into the debt.
I don't know what the media reports. But I do know that the future liabilities were never legally incorporated into the debt, either formally, informally or otherwise. There is no lockbox; never has been; that was Al Gore's point to the extent he had one.
QuoteI'm speculating a bit here (maybe Joan could shed some light), but I would also be very surprised if the Congress and president could pass a law stating that those bonds in the trust fund no longer exist.
Sure - the bonds could just be returned to the Treaury and cancelled.
QuoteSo in the context of austerity/stimulus spending/etc., etc., we have two choices: we can pretend we have a debt of 73% and go on a spending spree to bring down those last two points of unemployment, then act dismayed and surprised when the deficit soars when Boomers retire, or we say with total debt of 105% of GDP any further deficit spending at this point should be handled very carefully, and not be surprised and dismayed when the Boomers retire.
This gets to the point.
What you are really saying is that if present acturarial assumptions hold AND no changes are made to the structure and terms of the SS law AND Congress appropriates sufficient money each year to fund it AND there are no other changes in revenue or appropriations that impact debt levels AND there is no changes in GDP growth that affects debt/GDP then the net debt WILL eventually grow to 105% in the future. But that is very different from saying the debt is 105% NOW. It confuses the issue.
Another alternate reality to consider is that of putting the Clinton SS surpluses into a sovereign wealth fund, dedicated to paying retiree benefits.
We would then have a wealth fund of 32% of GDP, and national debt of 105% of GDP.
Would you all be arguing in that reality that debt is only 73% of GDP?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 02:32:44 PM
Sure - the bonds could just be returned to the Treaury and cancelled.
You sure? There is no trustee of the fund with fiduciary and legal obligations?
QuoteThis gets to the point.
What you are really saying is that if present acturarial assumptions hold AND no changes are made to the structure and terms of the SS law AND Congress appropriates sufficient money each year to fund it AND there are no other changes in revenue or appropriations that impact debt levels AND there is no changes in GDP growth that affects debt/GDP then the net debt WILL eventually grow to 105% in the future. But that is very different from saying the debt is 105% NOW. It confuses the issue.
Confusing how? I'm not confused.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2013, 02:35:04 PM
Another alternate reality to consider is that of putting the Clinton SS surpluses into a sovereign wealth fund, dedicated to paying retiree benefits.
We would then have a wealth fund of 32% of GDP, and national debt of 105% of GDP.
Would you all be arguing in that reality that debt is only 73% of GDP?
Maybe not - if there were true formal legal and constitutional separation of the entity.
But that isn't what is happening here. What is happening here is the equivalent of you committing to meet your children's future college expenses by using the money if your right pocket, and then filling up your right pocket with a bunch of IOUs signed by your left pocket. Those IOUs can be called debt instruments, but they do not in fact increase your personal debt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2013, 02:40:00 PM
You sure? There is no trustee of the fund with fiduciary and legal obligations?
Whoever that trustee is, they are obliged to do what Congress tells them to do by law.
Congress could dissolve the entire SSA and have the Treasury assume all its functions if it wished.
QuoteConfusing how? I'm not confused.
It's confusing because it uses a term (debt) in a way that is contrary to the usual and accepted way that term is used.
You are defining "debt" as "debt according to the usual definition + an ad hoc set of other expected future liabilities"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 02:48:34 PM
You are defining "debt" as "debt according to the usual definition + an ad hoc set of other expected future liabilities"
For the eighth time, I am not. I am defining debt as total debt issued, minus any offsetting assets, of which there are none.
However, if, as you claim, the debt held by the trust fund has no legal safeguards, and would not trigger a default in the event of the Treasury declining to honor them, then I suppose we can agree that current debt is 73% of GDP and will rise to 105% in the future.
The first time this happened the reaction OMG the unthinkable could happen. Now the reaction is Meh, another budget cycle in the US.
How far the mighty of fallen. :cry:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 23, 2013, 11:43:34 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 23, 2013, 10:19:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 04:31:32 PM
That makes the number bigger.
But even the top 400 Americans, if nationalized, would do significant damage to the debt.
But how much money do we want to take from taxpayers? What would that do to the economy?
Turn it into a power capable of going toe-to-toe with the Russkis in nuclear combat while simultaneously supporting the greatest expansion of material prosperity in the history of Earth?
Higher top rates literally do not matter except in terms of revenue generation. The incentive for people at the top of the economy is not more money in itself; money is only a token of something else, namely the illusion of control over their environment. They'll continue to do their jobs, and even if they don't, someone else will with no real difference in quality of output. No one is more replaceable than a billionaire.
That's a pre-globalized viewpoint.
Flight is an issue. I propose a Wall.
Dude, have you been gone? I had a great Daredevil: Born Again reference but you weren't here.
What you will need is capital controls.
Even flight has its limits. Otherwise every rich person on the planet would be living in the lowest taxed municipality available. They aren't, so there must be other reasons they do what they do.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:30:45 PM
Even flight has its limits. Otherwise every rich person on the planet would be living in the lowest taxed municipality available. They aren't, so there must be other reasons they do what they do.
Naw, people can live where they want and their assets in other jurisdictions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 07:23:55 PM
What you will need is capital controls.
Yes. The Wall was metaphorical. It will also be a good place to hide from memories of your mother and failed relationships.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 07:23:55 PM
What you will need is capital controls.
Yes. The Wall was metaphorical. It will also be a good place to hide from memories of your mother and failed relationships.
:thumbsup:
All in all you do come through sometimes, Ide.
:)
Quote from: Savonarola on September 24, 2013, 07:57:27 PM
All in all you do come through sometimes, Ide.
Usually it's through a convenience store window with his car, but yeah, sometimes he does.
Ide's alright, even though he is Lumpen Proletariat.
Look, I know I need to lose a couple of pounds, okay?
QuoteEverything you need to know about how a government shutdown works
By Brad Plumer, Washington Post
Updated: September 24, 2013
If the House and Senate can't agree on a government funding bill by Sept. 30, the federal government will shut down. And, right now, the House and Senate can't agree on a bill. They're wrangling over Obamacare.
So... it's time to start thinking about what a federal government shutdown would actually look like.
Not all government functions would simply evaporate come Oct. 1 — Social Security checks would still get mailed, and veterans' hospitals would stay open. But many federal agencies would shut their doors and send their employees home, from the Department of Education to hundreds of national parks.
Here's a look at how a shutdown would work, which parts of the government would close, and which parts of the economy might be affected.
Wait, what? Why is the federal government on the verge of shutting down?
Short answer: There are wide swaths of the federal government that need to be funded each year in order to operate. If Congress can't agree on how to fund them, they have to close down. And, right now, Congress can't agree on how to fund them.
To get a bit more specific: Each year, the House and Senate are supposed to agree on 12 appropriations bills to fund the federal agencies and set spending priorities. Congress has become really bad at passing these bills, so in recent years they've resorted to stopgap budgets to keep the government funded (known as "continuing resolutions"). The last stopgap passed on March 28, 2013, and ends on Sept. 30.
In theory, Congress could pass another stopgap this week. But the Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House are at odds over what that stopgap should look like. The House version included an item that would defund Obamacare. The Senate's bill will almost certainly strip that provision out. So... we have a standoff.
Does a shutdown mean everyone who works for the federal government has to go home?
Nope. The laws and regulations governing shutdowns separate federal workers into "essential" and "non-essential." (Actually, the preferred term nowadays is "excepted" and "non-excepted." This was tweaked in 1995 because "non-essential" seemed a bit hurtful. But we'll keep things simple.)
The Office of Management and Budget recently ordered managers at all federal agencies to conduct reviews to see which of their employees fall into each of these two categories. If a shutdown hits, the essential workers stick around, albeit without pay. The non-essential workers have to go home after a half-day of preparing to close shop.
Which parts of government stay open?
There are a whole bunch of key government functions that carry on during a shutdown, including anything related to national security, public safety, or programs written into permanent law (like Social Security). Here's a partial list:
-- Any employee or office that "provides for the national security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to the national security or the safety of life and property." That means the U.S. military will keep operating, for one.
-- Any employee who conducts "essential activities to the extent that they protect life and property." So, for example: Air traffic control stays open. So do all emergency medical care, food-safety inspections, border patrol, federal prisons, law enforcement, emergency and disaster assistance, overseeing the banking system, operating the power grid, and guarding federal property.
-- Agencies have to keep sending out benefits and operating programs that are written into permanent law or get multi-year funding. That means sending out Social Security checks and providing certain types of veterans' benefits.
-- All agencies with independent sources of funding remain open, including the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Reserve.
-- Members of Congress can also stick around, since their pay is written into permanent law. However, many congressional staffers may not get paid without specific appropriations.* Many White House employees may also have to go without pay.
Do these "essential" employees who keep working get paid?
They don't get a paycheck during the shutdown. They do, however, receive retroactive pay if and when Congress decides to fund the government again.
So which parts of government actually shut down?
Everything else, basically. It's a long list, and you can check out in detail which activities the agencies are planning to halt in these memos from 2011 — the last time a government shutdown looked imminent.
Alternatively, we can see what happened in 1995 and 1996, the last two times the federal government actually shut down for a few weeks. These examples all come from a recent Congressional Research Service report, and they're only meant to be illustrative — a shutdown in 2013 could well differ in the details :
Health. The National Institutes of Health stopped accepting new patients for clinical research and stopped answering hotline calls about medial questions. The Centers for Disease Control stopped monitoring disease.
Law enforcement. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms stopped processing applications for firearms and alcohol. The federal government stopped work on about 3,500 bankruptcy cases as well as a number of child-support cases. The Border Patrol put a hold on hiring 400 new agents.
Parks and museums. The National Park Service closed 368 sites, such as Yosemite National Park in California. All told, some 7 million visitors were turned away. (One big exception was the south rim of the Grand Canyon, which stayed open only because Arizona agreed to pick up the tab.)
Regulatory agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency closes down almost entirely during a shutdown. So do certain financial regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Although corporations can still file documents like 10Ks through automated systems, there's no one around to scrutinize the papwerwork.
(Small parts of) Social Security. During the last shutdown, the Social Security Administration was able to keep on enough employees to make sure the checks kept going out. But the agency didn't have enough staff to do things like answer phone calls or help recipients who needed to change addresses. So some disruptions are possible.
Visas and passports. During the shutdown, around 20,000 to 30,000 applications from foreigners for visas went unprocessed each day. The State Department also had to let some 200,000 applications from Americans for visas gather dust.
Veterans. Although some key benefits continued and the VA hospitals remained open, "multiple services were curtailed, ranging from health and welfare to finance and travel."
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) has a list of other possible effects of a shutdown. Funds to help states pay unemployment benefits could get disrupted, IRS tax-refund processing for certain returns would be suspended, new home-loan guarantees could cease, farm loans and payments would stop, and Small Business Administration approval of business loan guarantees and direct loans would likely cease.
Would the city of Washington D.C. be affected?
Yes. The District of Columbia is the only city barred from spending local funds during a shutdown, save for a few select services: The city will be able to keep police, firefighters and EMS units on duty. Public schools will also remain open.
But a variety of other city agencies would, in theory, have to close, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Public Works and the D.C. Public Libraries. Trash collection and street sweeping would come to a stop during the impasse. These activities all ceased for eight days during the 1995 shutdown, although Congress explicitly gave the city a reprieve during the 1996 impasse.
How many federal employees would be affected by a government shutdown?
Roughly half. Back in 2011, the government estimated that 1.2 million federal employees (out of 2 million or so) would likely get furloughed and sent home without pay in the event of a shutdown.
Note that this is actually a higher number than in 1995-1996 shutdowns, when only 800,000 (out of 2 million or so) were sent home. That's because the earlier shutdown was actually less widespread: At the time, Congress had already funded a few select parts of government, including the Department of Defense and the FDA. That hasn't happened this time around, at least not yet. So more employees will be affected.
Do "non-essential employees" who get sent home ever get paid?
That's unclear, as my colleague Lisa Rein reports. On the first day of the shutdown, these employees do have to come to their offices to secure various files and make preparations necessary to halt their programs. The last time this happened, Congress later agreed to pay these employees retroactively when the government reopened. But that's completely up to Congress.
Is the government even prepared for a shutdown?
Maybe? As mentioned before, the Office of Management and Budget has asked federal agencies to develop contingency plans for a shutdown. But chaos is certainly possible. Back during the 1995 shutdown, the Social Security Administration initially sent home far too many workers and had to recall 50,000 of them after three days in order to carry out its legal duties.
Which parts of the economy would be most affected by a shutdown?
In a research note earlier this week, Chris Krueger of Guggenheim Partners passed along some thoughts about the possible economic impacts of a shutdown in a few areas:
Tourism: U.S. tourist industries and airlines reportedly sustained millions of dollars in losses during the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns, in part because foreign visas were going unprocessed and in part because so many parks were shutting down. The passport and visa holdup can also disrupt business trips, both here and abroad.
Federal contractors. Of the $18 billion in federal contracts in the D.C. area back in 1995-1996, about one-fifth, or $3.7 billion, were put on hold during the shutdown. Employees of contractors were reportedly furloughed without pay.
Energy. The federal government would have to take a break from working on drilling permits and processing applications for liquefied natural gas exports.
Pharma and biotech. This one's hard to game out. The Food and Drug Administration didn't have to shut down in 1995 and 1996 because it was already funded. This time around, however, the FDA won't be spared, and the review process for new drugs might get bogged down. The shutdown could also put a cramp on the grant process from the National Institutes of Health. "If prolonged," Krueger writes, "that could negatively impact life sciences/diagnostics companies.
Would a government shutdown stop Obamacare from happening?
Nope. As Sarah Kliff has explained, the key parts of Obamacare rely on mandatory spending that isn't affected by a shutdown. "That includes the new online marketplaces, known as exchanges, where uninsured people will be able to shop for coverage. The Medicaid expansion is funded with mandatory funding, as are the billions in federal tax credits to help with purchasing coverage." The government would continue to set these up.
How do you end a government shutdown?
Congress needs to pass a bill (or bills) to fund the government, and the White House has to sign them. They can do this at any time. Or they can sit at home and keep the government closed. Nothing requires them to do anything. It depends what sort of political pressure they're facing.
How often has the government shut down before?
Since 1976, there have been 17 different government shutdowns. The longest came in 1995-1996 and lasted 21 days, as Bill Clinton wrangled with congressional Republicans over budget matters. But there were six shutdowns in the 1970s, all lasting longer than eight days, and there was even a one-day shutdown in 1982 when Congress couldn't agree on funding for Nicaraguan Contras.
Is a government shutdown the same thing as breaching the debt ceiling?
Nope! Different type of crisis. In a government shutdown, the federal government is not allowed to make any new spending commitments (save for all the exceptions noted above).
By contrast, if we hit the debt-ceiling then the Treasury Department won't be able to borrow money to pay for spending that Congress has already approved. In that case, either Congress will have to lift the debt ceiling or the federal government will have to default on some of its bills, possibly including payments to bondholders. That could trigger big disruptions in the financial markets — or a long-term rise in borrowing costs.
The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that we're on pace to breach the debt ceiling sometime between Oct. 18 and Nov. 5. So if a government shutdown isn't thrilling enough for you, good news: There's another fiscal crisis just around the corner.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:01:42 PM
Look, I know I need to lose a couple of pounds, okay?
Less carbs, more meat.
If a person doesn't know by now what could happen with a government shutdown, they don't care to know.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:21:30 PM
Flight is an issue. I propose a Wall.
Dude, have you been gone? I had a great Daredevil: Born Again reference but you weren't here.
I never read much Daredevil.
I've been traveling a bit recently. Haven't had as much time.
Lame.
http://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-filibuster-video-145534720.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359534/revealed-house-gops-debt-ceiling-plan-jonathan-strong
QuoteBelow is an outline of the GOP's debt-ceiling bill obtained by National Review Online. The document originated from staff to a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and is dated yesterday. A GOP-leadership aide says there are some differences between this and their latest summary, so take that for what it's worth. As always with the House Republicans, it is subject to discussion from members, many of whom are quite vocal in providing their input on such plans.
House leadership is planning to pass the bill as early as Saturday. The bill itself is expected to be released imminently. The outline is not a huge surprise — most of the provisions have been floated or leaked, but it's interesting to see the breadth of the demands laid out on paper.
Voting to increase the debt ceiling is always a brutal vote for lawmakers, because it's very unpopular with their constituents back home. House conservatives also worry about undermining the Senate process and particularly Senator Ted Cruz's fight in that chamber. For example, there have been efforts to keep the House's plans under the radar until after the final cloture vote in order not to hinder Cruz's push for the GOP to filibuster.
- One Year Debt Limit Increase
--- Not a dollar amount increase, but suspending the debt limit until the end of December 2014.
----- Similar to what we did earlier this year.
--- Want the year long to align with the year delay of Obamacare.
- One Year Obamacare delay
- Tax Reform Instructions
--- Similar to a bill we passed last fall, laying out broad from Ryan Budget principles for what tax reform should look like.
--- Gives fast track authority for tax reform legislation
- Energy and regulatory reforms to promote economic growth
--- Includes pretty much every jobs bill we have passed this year and last Congress
--- All of these policies have important positive economic effects.
--- Energy provisions
----- Keystone Pipeline
----- Coal Ash regulations
----- Offshore drilling
----- Energy production on federal lands
----- EPA Carbon regulations
--- Regulatory reform
----- REINS Act
----- Regulatory process reform
-----Consent decree reform
----- Blocking Net Neutrality
- Mandatory Spending Reforms
--- Mostly from the sequester replacement bills we passed last year
--- Federal Employee retirement reform
--- Ending the Dodd Frank bailout fund
--- Transitioning CFPB funding to Appropriations
--- Child Tax Credit Reform to prevent fraud
--- Repealing the Social Services Block grant
- Health Spending Reforms
--- Means testing Medicare
--- Repealing a Medicaid Provider tax gimmick
--- Tort reform
--- Altering Disproportion Share Hospitals
--- Repealing the Public Health trust Fund
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2013, 10:20:51 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:21:30 PM
Flight is an issue. I propose a Wall.
Dude, have you been gone? I had a great Daredevil: Born Again reference but you weren't here.
I never read much Daredevil.
I've been traveling a bit recently. Haven't had as much time.
Fair enough, hope you're having fun. :)
Anyway, in the article, I was gonna say, "They sent my dad (an SSA claims rep) home in '95," but then they mentioned it. Do they just keep everybody working at the SSA now?
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 09:14:14 AM
If a person doesn't know by now what could happen with a government shutdown, they don't care to know.
Since there is never going to be a "government shutdown" that's moot.
If a person doesn't understand what the parts of the government and its services are part of a partial government shutdown, they will learn. Whether they care or not I will leave to your amazing powers of telling people what they care about.
How can you tell if the US government shuts down?
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 07:23:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 09:14:14 AM
If a person doesn't know by now what could happen with a government shutdown, they don't care to know.
Since there is never going to be a "government shutdown" that's moot.
If a person doesn't understand what the parts of the government and its services are part of a partial government shutdown, they will learn. Whether they care or not I will leave to your amazing powers of telling people what they care about.
Old people say the darnedest things.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 07:23:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 09:14:14 AM
If a person doesn't know by now what could happen with a government shutdown, they don't care to know.
Since there is never going to be a "government shutdown" that's moot.
If a person doesn't understand what the parts of the government and its services are part of a partial government shutdown, they will learn. Whether they care or not I will leave to your amazing powers of telling people what they care about.
Grumbler was saying something similar when the Visigoths were coming up on Rome.
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2013, 07:29:50 AM
How can you tell if the US government shuts down?
You'll notice the "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 09:43:45 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2013, 07:29:50 AM
How can you tell if the US government shuts down?
You'll notice the "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
Whatever you say Dr. Venkman.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 09:43:45 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2013, 07:29:50 AM
How can you tell if the US government shuts down?
You'll notice the "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
I guess we should have reduced our carbon footprints.
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2013, 12:36:50 PM
I guess we should have reduced our carbon footprints.
Are you trying to set up a Katmai = Sasquatch joke? :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2013, 12:48:47 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2013, 12:36:50 PM
I guess we should have reduced our carbon footprints.
Are you trying to set up a Katmai = Sasquatch joke? :unsure:
No. :(
Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2013, 07:47:43 AM
Old people say the darnedest things.
I've noticed that about you. You weren't so cranky before you got old.
I'm a lot mellower now. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2013, 02:31:04 PM
I'm a lot mellower now. :)
Cranky
and delusional. Not a good combination, old man. :(
So once you fixed this, the next debt ceiling is coming up?
Quote from: Zanza on September 29, 2013, 02:54:08 PM
So once you fixed this, the next debt ceiling is coming up?
Yup.
It's turning into one of those old school serials.
WILL THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS DESTROY THE US ECONOMY AND DRAG THE WORLD INTO RUIN THIS TIME? -- TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO FIND OUT!
I agreed with Rupert Murdoch's tweets:
Are Republicans self-destructing just when Obama at his weakest? Partial govt shut-down small issue compared to possible default.
Cruz' grandstanding will cost him long-term, smarter Rand Paul silent. Meanwhile# both sides seem incapable of political deal making.
And with David Frum that it looks like a lot of Congressional Republicans are getting into a fight that they think will end badly, but they're still going for it :blink:
"What an astonishing thing it is, that those who are employed to sign the Continental bills should not be able, or inclined, to do it as fast as they are wanted. They will prove the destruction of the army, if they are not more attentive and diligent. Such a dearth of public spirit, and want of virtue, such stock-jobbing, and fertility in all the low arts to obtain advantages of one kind or another, in this great change of military arrangement, I never saw before, and pray God I may never be witness to again. What will be the ultimate end of these manoeuvres is beyond my scan. I tremble at the prospect."
– George Washington, letter to Joseph Reed, Cambridge, November 28, 1775
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/970538_516161025144069_134453068_n.jpg)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2013, 04:56:26 PM
I agreed with Rupert Murdoch's tweets:
Are Republicans self-destructing just when Obama at his weakest? Partial govt shut-down small issue compared to possible default.
Cruz' grandstanding will cost him long-term, smarter Rand Paul silent. Meanwhile# both sides seem incapable of political deal making.
There is no both sides to this. The GOP are demanding "give us everything, or we blow up shit". Obama and the Dems have been compromising and giving ground since 2008 and there's no more ground to give. It's basically nihilism from the Republicans.
Threatening a shut down or worse, a default, because they don't get to run the country like they have the Presidency and a majority in both houses is on the GOP.
At this point "both sides" is an attempt to get some of the mud and blood from the GOP nihilist explosion to stick on the Dems as well.
The Republicans seem to be banking on the fact that everyone will forget they might have been a little bit obstructionist.
Still a :zzz. Even if it does shut down, which it wont, I'll still be working.
Yes, the Republicans are the legislative equivalent of al Qaeda.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 29, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Still a :zzz . Even if it does shut down, which it wont, I'll still be working.
Not that with the tattoo ban coming down the pipe.
Quote from: PDH on September 29, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
The Republicans seem to be banking on the fact that everyone will forget they might have been a little bit obstructionist.
Do House Republicans really care about everyone?
Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2013, 07:20:06 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 29, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
The Republicans seem to be banking on the fact that everyone will forget they might have been a little bit obstructionist.
Do House Republicans really care about everyone?
They say they do. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2013, 07:20:06 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 29, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
The Republicans seem to be banking on the fact that everyone will forget they might have been a little bit obstructionist.
Do House Republicans really care about everyone?
Of course not. Really, the House Republicans are doing what they can do in order to avoid getting primaried in the most conservative, least intelligent districts in the country. If they have to destroy American in order to secure their reelection, then they would happily do that.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 06:54:57 PM
The GOP are demanding "give us everything, or we blow up shit".
No they're not. They're only defunding Obamacare, and they've already signaled that the government is not going to shut down.
How much longer until the spellcheck is OK with Obamacare?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2013, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 29, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Still a :zzz . Even if it does shut down, which it wont, I'll still be working.
Not that with the tattoo ban coming down the pipe.
DoD Civilian Sparky. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 06:54:57 PM
The GOP are demanding "give us everything, or we blow up shit".
No they're not. They're only defunding Obamacare, and they've already signaled that the government is not going to shut down.
How much longer until the spellcheck is OK with Obamacare?
:D Yea no shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 06:54:57 PM
The GOP are demanding "give us everything, or we blow up shit".
No they're not. They're only defunding Obamacare, and they've already signaled that the government is not going to shut down.
How much longer until the spellcheck is OK with Obamacare?
But they won't be able to defund it.
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2013, 07:58:42 PM
But they won't be able to defund it.
My mistake. I meant trying to defund Obamacare.
Quote from: PDH on September 29, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
The Republicans seem to be banking on the fact that everyone will forget they might have been a little bit obstructionist.
It's only obstructionist if it's the other side. If it's your side, you're "principled".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
It's only obstructionist if it's the other side. If it's your side, you're "principled".
Exactly. Case in point, the attempt to defund GW2.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
It's only obstructionist if it's the other side. If it's your side, you're "principled".
Exactly. Case in point, the attempt to defund GW2.
They ever shut down the government on that?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2013, 10:13:02 PM
They ever shut down the government on that?
Exactly the same number of times as it has been shut down during the Obama administration.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2013, 10:13:02 PM
They ever shut down the government on that?
Exactly the same number of times as it has been shut down during the Obama administration.
Fair enough, though I may repeat the question a few days from now. What exactly were the bills then that would have defunded the Iraq war, and when were the funding crises?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
It's only obstructionist if it's the other side. If it's your side, you're "principled".
Exactly. Case in point, the attempt to defund GW2.
There's a bit of a PR problem between trying to put the brakes on an unpopular, unnecessary war 5 years after it started, compared to shutting down the government in order to prevent people from obtaining healthcare.
I mean, I know you don't want me to have insurance, and I'm cool with that, but think of the little children who may need it. Like, babies and shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:12:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
It's only obstructionist if it's the other side. If it's your side, you're "principled".
Exactly. Case in point, the attempt to defund GW2.
There's a bit of a PR problem between trying to put the brakes on an unpopular, unnecessary war 5 years after it started, compared to shutting down the government in order to prevent people from obtaining healthcare.
I mean, I know you don't want me to have insurance, and I'm cool with that, but think of the little children who may need it. Like, babies and shit.
If they want healthcare the damned well better have been born wealthy.
So is Siege going to going to get paid on time?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:12:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
It's only obstructionist if it's the other side. If it's your side, you're "principled".
Exactly. Case in point, the attempt to defund GW2.
There's a bit of a PR problem between trying to put the brakes on an unpopular, unnecessary war 5 years after it started, compared to shutting down the government in order to prevent people from obtaining healthcare.
I mean, I know you don't want me to have insurance, and I'm cool with that, but think of the little children who may need it. Like, babies and shit.
Really? Think of the children bullshit? Ugh.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2013, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:12:26 AM
I mean, I know you don't want me to have insurance, and I'm cool with that, but think of the little children who may need it. Like, babies and shit.
Really? Think of the children bullshit? Ugh.
Think of all the future shareholders.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:47:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2013, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:12:26 AM
I mean, I know you don't want me to have insurance, and I'm cool with that, but think of the little children who may need it. Like, babies and shit.
Really? Think of the children bullshit? Ugh.
Think of all the future shareholders.
Didn't we already see they won't have any money till they are in their 30s? All my good years will be through with by then.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2013, 03:35:16 AM
Fair enough, though I may repeat the question a few days from now. What exactly were the bills then that would have defunded the Iraq war, and when were the funding crises?
wut?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:12:26 AM
There's a bit of a PR problem between trying to put the brakes on an unpopular, unnecessary war 5 years after it started, compared to shutting down the government in order to prevent people from obtaining healthcare.
Funny you mentioned unpopular & unnecessary, as Obamacare is both.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2013, 12:27:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:12:26 AM
There's a bit of a PR problem between trying to put the brakes on an unpopular, unnecessary war 5 years after it started, compared to shutting down the government in order to prevent people from obtaining healthcare.
Funny you mentioned unpopular & unnecessary, as Obamacare is both.
Guess it depends on which sound vacuum you're in. It's pretty popular and, as it turns out, pretty necessary, over here. Maybe it's different for you guys over in Cracker Dumbfuckistan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 07:41:21 PMNo they're not. They're only defunding Obamacare, and they've already signaled that the government is not going to shut down.
They're not shutting down the government over Obamacare? That's good :)
You figure they'll blow up the full faith and credit of the US over Obamacare?
QuoteHow much longer until the spellcheck is OK with Obamacare?
Heh :)
Quote from: Jacob on September 30, 2013, 01:10:00 PM
You figure they'll blow up the full faith and credit of the US over Obamacare?
Nope.
Lol, that's right, Xiacob, keep getting your news from Yi.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 02:30:38 PM
Lol, that's right, Xiacob, keep getting your news from Yi.
A prediction is not news, you dimwit.
I predict your predictions are horse hockey.
:yes:
The US is just going to disband on the 17th - so better move quick to where you want to be living for the next couple years.
Why America is third world country?
Well, looks like the shutdown is a lock.
Was that Russian guy right hwne he predicted the breakup of the US???
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2013, 02:32:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 02:30:38 PM
Lol, that's right, Xiacob, keep getting your news from Yi.
A prediction is not news, you dimwit.
Looks like a shutdown is going to happen...
I'm going on vacation in two weeks to DC. This hd better be over by then.
Quote from: Jacob on September 30, 2013, 04:13:02 PM
Looks like a shutdown is going to happen...
Yeah. I don't know who Yi's "they" is when he says " they've already signaled that the government is not going to shut down," but "they" obviously are not very well-connected to Congress.
This really is one of the most astonishing cases of cowardly leadership I have ever seen. I thought Pelosi was about as bad a Speaker as it was possible to be, but Boehner makes her look like a cross between Einstein and MLK Jr. When he finally gets kicked out of this job, Boehner is going to have to start giving elephants blow jobs at a nickle a herd to get some self-respect back.
I like Boehner and I think he's one of the few Republicans who would go for a deal (on most subjects) unfortunately the party are just very extreme now. Herding cats doesn't even cover the difficulty any leader would have dragging them to a reasonable position.
It probably doesn't help that, from what I can tell, there are so many peacocks around the House Republicans, preening to become Speaker once they decide to dump Boehner.
I keep on thinking some sense will get through but the GOP really look like Labour in the 80s :(
I think that if Boehner had any self-respect, he would have resigned as Speaker rather than be a party to pushing the agenda of the extremists in his party.
Yes.
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 30, 2013, 04:51:57 PM
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
My God, he's going to start a war.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2013, 04:35:21 PM
I like Boehner and I think he's one of the few Republicans who would go for a deal (on most subjects) unfortunately the party are just very extreme now. Herding cats doesn't even cover the difficulty any leader would have dragging them to a reasonable position.
It probably doesn't help that, from what I can tell, there are so many peacocks around the House Republicans, preening to become Speaker once they decide to dump Boehner.
I keep on thinking some sense will get through but the GOP really look like Labour in the 80s :(
Boehner is a pleasant coward, I'll give him that. The problem is that even a pleasant coward is a coward. Boehner could have the deal done any time he wanted to. All it would require is the slightest exhibition of leadership. He doesn't want to do that, though, as it would make some people mad at him, and he won't have that. Better to fuck over the people who elected him than upset someone who works with him.
You are right that there are a fair number of peacocks looking at his job. That's one of the reasons Boehner won't actually do his job: he loves being Speaker more than he wants to actually act the Speaker.
I think Cantor is a prick and a moron, but he'd be a better Speaker, because he wouldn't be afraid to act the Speaker. He wouldn't get anything done, but that would be an honest impasse, as opposed to the current cowardly one.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 30, 2013, 04:53:15 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 30, 2013, 04:51:57 PM
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
My God, he's going to start a war.
The chances of anything coming from Mars
are a million to one he said
The chances of anything coming from Mars
are a million to one...
but, still, they come.
No one could have imagined that in the early years of the 21st Century....
ooh...nice reference to an old forgotten prog rock classic
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2013, 07:24:13 AM
So is Siege going to going to get paid on time?
Uninterrupted military pay has been signed off on.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 30, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2013, 07:24:13 AM
So is Siege going to going to get paid on time?
Uninterrupted military pay has been signed off on.
The Coors Light must flow.
I am available to be dictator for a year. A year of my steady, bloody hand on the ship of state will do the United States wonders.
The lists of those to be proscribed are all drawn up.
Quote from: PDH on September 30, 2013, 07:07:33 PM
The lists of those to be proscribed are all drawn up.
All with only one name.....
Tim
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 30, 2013, 07:16:50 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 30, 2013, 07:07:33 PM
The lists of those to be proscribed are all drawn up.
All with only one name.....
Tim
Not Dorsey or that ranger spec ops ninja guy, or Lady Europa, or Emmauk, or BiB, or Hamilcar, Rocky HOrror, Rocky, Rocket, ITBitch?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 30, 2013, 07:27:47 PMNot Dorsey or that ranger spec ops ninja guy, or Lady Europa, or Emmauk, or BiB, or Hamilcar, Rocky HOrror, Rocky, Rocket, ITBitch?
Ah... you see... there's a department tasked with changing appropriate people's names to "Tim" whether they want it or not.
Quote from: Jacob on September 30, 2013, 04:13:02 PM
Looks like a shutdown is going to happen...
All this fuss, just to make sure I can't get affordable healthcare. The GOP hasn't made me feel this special since the Willie Horton ads scared me about black people.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2013, 04:54:10 PM
I think Cantor is a prick and a moron, but he'd be a better Speaker, because he wouldn't be afraid to act the Speaker. He wouldn't get anything done, but that would be an honest impasse, as opposed to the current cowardly one.
Maybe, but Cantor is just creepy. And not in a Lindsay Graham way, either.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 30, 2013, 06:06:09 PMUninterrupted military pay has been signed off on.
Keep the legions paid.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 30, 2013, 04:51:57 PM
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.environmentalgraffiti.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2F1907133298_74b9c3cc6d_z.img_assist_custom-600x521.jpg&hash=2e26741a419f5fc7ea6f20ae5119394ab6037383)
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 30, 2013, 04:51:57 PM
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbasementrejects.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fmash-season-2-2-5-oclock-charlie-300x224.jpg&hash=71e8d1c2e39a092d9acf0c0ab0c4a517c453e83f)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2013, 04:54:10 PM
I think Cantor is a prick and a moron, but he'd be a better Speaker, because he wouldn't be afraid to act the Speaker. He wouldn't get anything done, but that would be an honest impasse, as opposed to the current cowardly one.
Maybe, but Cantor is just creepy. And not in a Lindsay Graham way, either.
But we knew you were an anti-semite.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2013, 04:54:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2013, 04:35:21 PM
I like Boehner and I think he's one of the few Republicans who would go for a deal (on most subjects) unfortunately the party are just very extreme now. Herding cats doesn't even cover the difficulty any leader would have dragging them to a reasonable position.
It probably doesn't help that, from what I can tell, there are so many peacocks around the House Republicans, preening to become Speaker once they decide to dump Boehner.
I keep on thinking some sense will get through but the GOP really look like Labour in the 80s :(
Boehner is a pleasant coward, I'll give him that. The problem is that even a pleasant coward is a coward. Boehner could have the deal done any time he wanted to. All it would require is the slightest exhibition of leadership. He doesn't want to do that, though, as it would make some people mad at him, and he won't have that. Better to fuck over the people who elected him than upset someone who works with him.
You are right that there are a fair number of peacocks looking at his job. That's one of the reasons Boehner won't actually do his job: he loves being Speaker more than he wants to actually act the Speaker.
I think Cantor is a prick and a moron, but he'd be a better Speaker, because he wouldn't be afraid to act the Speaker. He wouldn't get anything done, but that would be an honest impasse, as opposed to the current cowardly one.
I'm curious why Boehner is a coward here and why cantor is superior.
I'm curious as to why the House Repuiblicans just don't demand Obama resign. If you are going to make unreasonable demands, you might as well make big ones.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2013, 09:02:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2013, 04:54:10 PM
I think Cantor is a prick and a moron, but he'd be a better Speaker, because he wouldn't be afraid to act the Speaker. He wouldn't get anything done, but that would be an honest impasse, as opposed to the current cowardly one.
Maybe, but Cantor is just creepy. And not in a Lindsay Graham way, either.
But we knew you were an anti-semite.
If you're going to go creepy, at least do it in a lilting Carolinian style, heart all fluttery and my stars, I do declare.
It works for me.
America is now closed. :lmfao:
It's after midnight. Yay for America.
And I'm going to enroll for healthcare coverage tomorrow anyway, so suck on that all you Obama- and CdM-haters. You want to kill me, you're going to need a bigger shutdown, fuckers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2013, 10:13:02 PM
They ever shut down the government on that?
Exactly the same number of times as it has been shut down during the Obama administration.
Yeah, so about that equivalency thing...
What about it?
I was using the example to support Seedy's point about the relativity of obstructionism and principle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2013, 11:12:40 PM
What about it?
I was using the example to support Seedy's point about the relativity of obstructionism and principle.
Not obstructionism in action?
Quote from: 11B4V on September 29, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2013, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 29, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Still a :zzz . Even if it does shut down, which it wont, I'll still be working.
Not that with the tattoo ban coming down the pipe.
DoD Civilian Sparky. ;)
Hey, 50% of you guys are getting cut. Good luck this month.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2013, 11:19:02 PM
Not obstructionism in action?
I don't understand the question.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 11:07:15 PM
It's after midnight. Yay for America.
And I'm going to enroll for healthcare coverage tomorrow anyway, so suck on that all you Obama- and CdM-haters. You want to kill me, you're going to need a bigger shutdown, fuckers.
Um... you know that all you can do tomorrow/today is fill out an application, right? I mean.... ACA doesn't go into affect until Jan 1.
So all this stamping and huffing by the Republicans about how they have to shut it down NOW is a little confusing. The only thing that "opens" tomorrow is the application process.
So hey... I know there's still a chance that Boehner will pass a clean CR before he adjourns the House (unless he just did that?), so a shutdown is not 100% quite yet.
... anyhow, in two weeks there's the debt ceiling and - as I understand it - it's the real deal this time. No winging it and limping along with accounting tricks or anything like that; the debt ceiling must be raised or social security cheques and/or treasure bonds will not get paid.
How do you all feel about that? How's that going to play out?
Quote from: merithyn on September 30, 2013, 11:39:46 PM
Um... you know that all you can do tomorrow/today is fill out an application, right? I mean.... ACA doesn't go into affect until Jan 1.
Yes mother, I am aware of those little details.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
So hey... I know there's still a chance that Boehner will pass a clean CR before he adjourns the House (unless he just did that?), so a shutdown is not 100% quite yet.
Nope. It's done. Shutdown complete. 'Murica!!
Quote... anyhow, in two weeks there's the debt ceiling and - as I understand it - it's the real deal this time. No winging it and limping along with accounting tricks or anything like that; the debt ceiling must be raised or social security cheques and/or treasure bonds will not get paid.
How do you all feel about that? How's that going to play out?
I expect the US Government to fail to do anything, and us to default on some of our debts, causing the worldwide financial markets to teeter for a few days. Then, magically, they'll figure something out that will allow us to limp along again for another year, and the Dow will recover.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 12:07:05 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 30, 2013, 11:39:46 PM
Um... you know that all you can do tomorrow/today is fill out an application, right? I mean.... ACA doesn't go into affect until Jan 1.
Yes mother, I am aware of those little details.
That wasn't really directed at you, personally, as at every journalist and Republican in the US that keeps talking about how, when the exchanges open, TEH WROLD AS WE NO IT IS GOIN' TO CHANGE 4-EVER!!!
That's just ignorant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2013, 11:21:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2013, 11:19:02 PM
Not obstructionism in action?
I don't understand the question.
The "defund the Iraq war" thing was theoretical, never acted on. There was no budget crisis over it. No actual obstruction. This on the other hand has been acted on and precipitated a crisis and a partial government shutdown. My understanding is that you were drawing equivalency because of principle, even if the actions and results are wildly different. Is my understanding correct?
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
So hey... I know there's still a chance that Boehner will pass a clean CR before he adjourns the House (unless he just did that?), so a shutdown is not 100% quite yet.
... anyhow, in two weeks there's the debt ceiling and - as I understand it - it's the real deal this time. No winging it and limping along with accounting tricks or anything like that; the debt ceiling must be raised or social security cheques and/or treasure bonds will not get paid.
How do you all feel about that? How's that going to play out?
I hope it ends in a bloody civil war where my side wins.
Also that I survive.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
So hey... I know there's still a chance that Boehner will pass a clean CR before he adjourns the House (unless he just did that?), so a shutdown is not 100% quite yet.
... anyhow, in two weeks there's the debt ceiling and - as I understand it - it's the real deal this time. No winging it and limping along with accounting tricks or anything like that; the debt ceiling must be raised or social security cheques and/or treasure bonds will not get paid.
How do you all feel about that? How's that going to play out?
In all likelihood The speaker will allow the loopier GOP members to have their little tantrum for now, but will bring a bill to deal with the debt ceiling to a vote that will get enough votes to pass the House.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2013, 12:10:48 AM
I hope it ends in a bloody civil war where my side wins.
I'm sorry, but the South won't be rising again.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 12:14:25 AMIn all likelihood The speaker will allow the loopier GOP members to have their little tantrum for now, but will bring a bill to deal with the debt ceiling to a vote that will get enough votes to pass the House.
Oh, I don't doubt they'll pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling; but it'll probably have defunding Obamacare attached to it.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:27:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 12:14:25 AMIn all likelihood The speaker will allow the loopier GOP members to have their little tantrum for now, but will bring a bill to deal with the debt ceiling to a vote that will get enough votes to pass the House.
Oh, I don't doubt they'll pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling; but it'll probably have defunding Obamacare attached to it.
Nah, they'll put a serious one up. Boehner can't control his own caucus, be he can get enough of them along with Democrats to move something if absolutely required.
I think this rightwing tantrum is a disgrace to the US.
I am wondering what is the point of a debt ceiling if you just raise it whenever it is inconvenient, though.
Chuck Hagel's message to DoD military and civilian personnel basically says, "Sucks to be you, but thank you for your service!"
Sounds like the organization I work for. Actually, I wonder if it's possible the US govt is even more dysfunctional? :hmm:
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on October 01, 2013, 05:49:22 AM
Sounds like the organization I work for. Actually, I wonder if it's possible the US govt is even more dysfunctional? :hmm:
On its best day the US government, like pretty much every national government, is hugely dysfunctional. The simply goes with size and the kinds of people who seek government jobs.
What we are seeing here is a willful display of selfishness on the part of a minority of legislators and an abdication of leadership by their 'leaders," which merely looks like a dysfunctional organization. The organization of the House is, however, performing exactly as its members and leaders desire: ensuring their re-election, at the cost of some prosperity for the typical citizen.
I blame the educational system, myself. No one who was well-enough-educated to reject magical thinking would have voted for those minority clowns, and so they wouldn't be there to terrify the Cowardly Liar in the Speaker's seat if their constituents weren't so badly educated. The jabs about "third-world country" aren't so far off in some respects.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2013, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
So hey... I know there's still a chance that Boehner will pass a clean CR before he adjourns the House (unless he just did that?), so a shutdown is not 100% quite yet.
... anyhow, in two weeks there's the debt ceiling and - as I understand it - it's the real deal this time. No winging it and limping along with accounting tricks or anything like that; the debt ceiling must be raised or social security cheques and/or treasure bonds will not get paid.
How do you all feel about that? How's that going to play out?
I hope it ends in a bloody civil war where my side wins.
This is pretty selfish IMO.
Some things about America are just baffling. From a Westminster perspective the idea that you don't have to pass a budget is mind boggling :mellow:
Also that Congress takes the time to pass laws approving spending and then has to pass other laws to pay for that spending.
Free refills come with their cost, pal.
In Germany, parliament votes on the federal budget. However, as the government who prepare the budget will normally have the majority, it's not much of an issue, but a popular time to have broad debates about general policy in the parliament.
Quote from: Syt on October 01, 2013, 06:55:53 AM
In Germany, parliament votes on the federal budget. However, as the government who prepare the budget will normally have the majority, it's not much of an issue, but a popular time to have broad debates about general policy in the parliament.
Same here. The budget itself is presented and that normally takes an hour or two - in the 19th century Gladstone used to go on for 4-5 hours. Then it's debated for a few days and it tends to be quite wide-ranging, covering all economic and financial events of the last year; current spending and future spending and so on. But if a government can't pass a budget it falls and we have elections because it's a vote of no confidence.
I would like to congratulate the United States of America on looking like complete and utter idiots.
If it weren't for all those stupid people and their need for healthcare who won't just die already, we wouldn't be in this mess for at least another 2 weeks. :mad:
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 01, 2013, 06:17:42 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2013, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
So hey... I know there's still a chance that Boehner will pass a clean CR before he adjourns the House (unless he just did that?), so a shutdown is not 100% quite yet.
... anyhow, in two weeks there's the debt ceiling and - as I understand it - it's the real deal this time. No winging it and limping along with accounting tricks or anything like that; the debt ceiling must be raised or social security cheques and/or treasure bonds will not get paid.
How do you all feel about that? How's that going to play out?
I hope it ends in a bloody civil war where my side wins.
This is pretty selfish IMO.
I'm tired of the only country on Earth that is both powerful and good being ruined by traitors.
QuoteShortly after midnight, President Barack Obama tweeted: "The Affordable Care Act is moving forward. You can't shut it down."
I am all for laisez faire, but it IS fucked up to start your fight for smaller government by fighting against a half-assed emergency health care measure.
QuoteBureacrageddon has come to pass
:bleeding:
Who the fuck coined that gem?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 07:20:39 AM
If it weren't for all those stupid people and their need for healthcare who won't just die already, we wouldn't be in this mess for at least another 2 weeks. :mad:
At least C-SPAN was immensely entertaining last night.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2013, 07:46:00 AM
Who the fuck coined that gem?
Only see it from Christian Science Monitor.
It doesn't even have anything to do with bureaucracy, as is commonly understood.
But if you're compelled, "bureaucalypse."
Given all the gun enthusiasts in the Tea Party, their marksmanship lacks ambition, maybe they're shooting their own country in the foot, so as to avoid active duty?
Quote from: mongers on October 01, 2013, 07:56:17 AM
Given all the gun enthusiasts in the Tea Party, their marksmanship lacks ambition, maybe they're shooting their own country in the foot, so as to avoid active duty?
Maybe you should take a mid-day nap. :console:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 08:59:24 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 30, 2013, 04:51:57 PM
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbasementrejects.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fmash-season-2-2-5-oclock-charlie-300x224.jpg&hash=71e8d1c2e39a092d9acf0c0ab0c4a517c453e83f)
Good 'ol 5 o'clock Charlie. :)
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 07:06:26 AM
I would like to congratulate the United States of America on looking like complete and utter idiots.
:yawn:
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 07:06:26 AM
I would like to congratulate the United States of America on looking like complete and utter idiots.
:yawn:
Why are you yawning, you get what you want: 19,000 kids kicked out of Headstart today. A lot of them are even black, so there's your double bonus, derweiss.
Still here, drinking coffee and posting on languish. So I guess the world has not ended... yet. :unsure:
Oh noes, Headstart-- the program that ultimately provides no lasting benefit.
From his FB posts it seems that my cousin who works for NASA is pretty pissy about being off today.
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 07:06:26 AM
I would like to congratulate the United States of America on looking like complete and utter idiots.
And I'd like to congratulate you on thus finally getting some company. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2013, 08:02:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2013, 08:59:24 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 30, 2013, 04:51:57 PM
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbasementrejects.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fmash-season-2-2-5-oclock-charlie-300x224.jpg&hash=71e8d1c2e39a092d9acf0c0ab0c4a517c453e83f)
Good 'ol 5 o'clock Charlie. :)
Oh my God, they've got a madman on their hands.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 08:28:05 AM
Oh noes, Headstart-- the program that ultimately provides no lasting benefit.
From his FB posts it seems that my cousin who works for NASA is pretty pissy about being off today.
I did hear that some veterans benefits my get disrupted.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 01, 2013, 08:26:50 AM
Still here, drinking coffee and posting on languish. So I guess the world has not ended... yet. :unsure:
Maybe it has ended and this is your afterlife? :ph34r:
Quote from: JacobL on October 01, 2013, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 01, 2013, 08:26:50 AM
Still here, drinking coffee and posting on languish. So I guess the world has not ended... yet. :unsure:
Maybe it has ended and this is your afterlife? :ph34r:
:blink: :unsure: :cry:
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 01, 2013, 08:59:21 AM
Quote from: JacobL on October 01, 2013, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 01, 2013, 08:26:50 AM
Still here, drinking coffee and posting on languish. So I guess the world has not ended... yet. :unsure:
Maybe it has ended and this is your afterlife? :ph34r:
:blink: :unsure: :cry:
Hell is Languish.
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 04:17:59 AM
I think this rightwing tantrum is a disgrace to the US.
I am wondering what is the point of a debt ceiling if you just raise it whenever it is inconvenient, though.
The point of the debt ceiling was to score cheap rhetorical points about debt, without it having a serious negative impact on the US' economy (because they'd raise it when necessary). Alas, the scoring of cheap rhetorical points got out of hand, so maybe they'll undermine the US and world economies for a few extra ones.
I thought this was interesting on the Danish debt ceiling:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/278075-denmark-offers-road-map-to-resolve-debt-ceiling-crisis
It's interesting how this doesn't seem to be affecting Wall Street all that much. My portfolio is actually up 0.42%.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 09:27:27 AM
It's interesting how this doesn't seem to be affecting Wall Street all that much. My portfolio is actually up 0.42%.
They probably knew it was coming for months.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 09:58:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 08:10:10 AM:yawn:
What's your take on the situation, derspiess?
I'd say it is unfortunate, particularly as House Republicans have little incentive to retrench at this point (unless their constituents start acting up) as do give up now would results in a massive loss of face among their voters.
life without the federal governement feels much the same as life without the national hockey league when it canceled the hockey season a few years back...I miss neither, and my life is unaffected.
I'm not sure we should ever restore funding to the feds beyond what's needed to blow up foreigners.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 09:58:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 08:10:10 AM:yawn:
What's your take on the situation, derspiess?
I'm not really paying much attention to it, to be honest. But if you really want my $.02, I'm about evenly split as to whether this was a worthwhile effort to turn back Obamacare or whether the GOP's political energy would've been better spent elsewhere. It will probably blow up in the GOP's face, because Obama always comes out of these types of crises without anything sticking to him. So maybe the latter.
There-- that's about as much interest as I have in thinking about it :yawn:
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 10:08:11 AMBut if you really want my $.02, I'm about evenly split as to whether this was a worthwhile effort to turn back Obamacare or whether the GOP's political energy would've been better spent elsewhere.
Like trying to win an election so they could turn back Obamacare?
QuoteIt will probably blow up in the GOP's face, because Obama always comes out of these types of crises without anything sticking to him.
I think it's because he's been very lucky in his enemies.
If Obama would have stared them down the first time they tried to pull this we wouldn't of had the annual repeats. Instead we get to regularly suffer through the grandstanding and time wasting.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
life without the federal governement feels much the same as life without the national hockey league when it canceled the hockey season a few years back...I miss neither, and my life is unaffected.
I'm not sure we should ever restore funding to the feds beyond what's needed to blow up foreigners.
When I saw the fallout and that all essential workers and programs would continue to be paid/funded, I had to wonder: shouldn't everything the government does be essential, and shouldn't it not be doing anything beyond that? :hmm: :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
life without the federal governement feels much the same as life without the national hockey league when it canceled the hockey season a few years back...I miss neither, and my life is unaffected.
I'm not sure we should ever restore funding to the feds beyond what's needed to blow up foreigners.
When I saw the fallout and that all essential workers and programs would continue to be paid/funded, I had to wonder: shouldn't everything the government does be essential, and shouldn't it not be doing anything beyond that? :hmm: :sleep:
*ding ding* Winner winner chicken dinner.
I've never understood what was so attractive about Bushcare that people will shut down the government and destroy its good faith and credit to preserve it. Is it the massive inefficiency (costing more per citizen than the German system, and providing less than half the coverage)? The rapid price increases? The absurd drug prices? The confusion about what it even is, how to use it, and how to select coverages among all the badly-written options?
Bushcare just doesn't seem to be something worthy of all this passion and self-inflicted humiliation. And yet, here we are. Why?
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 10:17:10 AM
]When I saw the fallout and that all essential workers and programs would continue to be paid/funded, I had to wonder: shouldn't everything the government does be essential, and shouldn't it not be doing anything beyond that? :hmm: :sleep:
I sure hope not. If the government does only the "essentials," then we don't have things like paved roads and the internet.
No paved roads means I can't drive to work, and no internet means I can't work, so you'll have to try harder than that grumbler. :(
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 10:25:00 AM
No paved roads means I can't drive to work, and no internet means I can't work, so you'll have to try harder than that grumbler. :(
It isn't essential that you drive to work, and it isn't essential that you are employed in a job where the internet is necessary. It has been done by millions in this country and even more throughout the world. Sorry, but if you want only the "essentials" from government, you'll have to do without the luxuries, like a good job.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 10:17:10 AM
When I saw the fallout and that all essential workers and programs would continue to be paid/funded, I had to wonder: shouldn't everything the government does be essential, and shouldn't it not be doing anything beyond that? :hmm: :sleep:
Where does that leave federal parks and reserves? And the FDA doesn't count as 'essential' but I'd guess most people agree that it's important. Highways, bridges, and non-essential infrastructure falls in there, too.
It's all well and good to say what the government should or shouldn't do, but those 'non-essentials' are part of what keep us from being like third-world nations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
Like trying to win an election so they could turn back Obamacare?
There's a question of the best way to go about doing that. Plus there's the issue of Obamacare being much harder to turn back once it's been in place for a period of time. I don't honestly know what the best strategy is for the GOP-- every one I can think of has serious negatives.
Quote
I think it's because he's been very lucky in his enemies.
That's part of the equation, for sure. The other part of it is that he has a significant floor limit in terms of the % of the public that will support him no matter what.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
life without the federal governement feels much the same as life without the national hockey league when it canceled the hockey season a few years back...I miss neither, and my life is unaffected.
I'm not sure we should ever restore funding to the feds beyond what's needed to blow up foreigners.
Yeah, most of the federal government is still functioning.
Well the non-farm payroll numbers didn't come out today, so the market is up. Anybody else notice anything?
Quote from: frunk on October 01, 2013, 10:16:07 AM
If Obama would have stared them down the first time they tried to pull this we wouldn't of had the annual repeats. Instead we get to regularly suffer through the grandstanding and time wasting.
Yep. Absolutely agree. This comes down as much to poor leadership by Obama as ignorance by the Tea Party wing of the Repubs Party.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
life without the federal governement feels much the same as life without the national hockey league when it canceled the hockey season a few years back...I miss neither, and my life is unaffected.
I'm not sure we should ever restore funding to the feds beyond what's needed to blow up foreigners.
When I saw the fallout and that all essential workers and programs would continue to be paid/funded, I had to wonder: shouldn't everything the government does be essential, and shouldn't it not be doing anything beyond that? :hmm: :sleep:
No. Why would you think that?
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 10:39:36 AM
There's a question of the best way to go about doing that. Plus there's the issue of Obamacare being much harder to turn back once it's been in place for a period of time. I don't honestly know what the best strategy is for the GOP-- every one I can think of has serious negatives.
The thing is that the last presidential election was essentially "Should we repeal Obamacare?" If so, vote in Romney. And Romney lost. So it's fair to say that the majority of the US wants to keep Obamacare. It's been made into a law - which required bi-partisan approval to get it through the House - and signed by the president. Even the Supreme Court has said, "Yes, this is a valid law."
There are far better things to spend our time on than repealing something that most people want.
What planet are you on, Meri? Public opinion polls do not show that most people want Obamacare.
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
It's been made into a law - which required bi-partisan approval to get it through the House - and signed by the president.
Obamacare became law before the first midterm, when Democrats controlled the House.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
It's been made into a law - which required bi-partisan approval to get it through the House - and signed by the president.
Obamacare became law before the first midterm, when Democrats controlled the House.
That doesn't actually contradict what she said.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 10:50:35 AM
What planet are you on, Meri? Public opinion polls do not show that most people want Obamacare.
Oh? I beg to differ.
Link (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/)
QuotePolls consistently show that Americans aren't happy with Obamacare. They think the law will make health care more expensive, and decrease its quality. But a new survey of 1,976 registered voters finds that only 33 percent believe that the health law should be repealed, delayed, or defunded. 29 percent believe that "Congress should make changes to improve the law," 26 percent believe that "Congress should let the law take effect" and see what happens, and 12 percent believe that the law should be expanded. The bottom line? Voters are skeptical that Obamacare will live up to Democrats' hype. But they also believe that it should be given a chance to succeed.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
It's been made into a law - which required bi-partisan approval to get it through the House - and signed by the president.
Obamacare became law before the first midterm, when Democrats controlled the House.
That doesn't actually contradict what she said.
I was trying to point out that her premise was flawed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
It's been made into a law - which required bi-partisan approval to get it through the House - and signed by the president.
Obamacare became law before the first midterm, when Democrats controlled the House.
Fair enough, but it still made it through the required hoops to be a law, and when given the opportunity to overthrow it, voters re-elected Obama rather than bring Romney in.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 10:50:35 AM
What planet are you on, Meri? Public opinion polls do not show that most people want Obamacare.
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-september-2013/
38% of those opposing Obamacare believe it has death panels. 20% more are unsure. You must be so proud!
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 10:39:36 AM
And the FDA doesn't count as 'essential' but I'd guess most people agree that it's important.
But still terrible.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 10:55:57 AM
That doesn't actually contradict what she said.
Yes it does. It didn't require bipartisan support.
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 10:39:36 AM
There's a question of the best way to go about doing that. Plus there's the issue of Obamacare being much harder to turn back once it's been in place for a period of time. I don't honestly know what the best strategy is for the GOP-- every one I can think of has serious negatives.
The thing is that the last presidential election was essentially "Should we repeal Obamacare?" If so, vote in Romney.
I don't think that's accurate.
Hell, even only 51% of Republicans are for repealing the law according to the poll I posted.
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/09/Morning-consult-2013-09b.png (http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/09/Morning-consult-2013-09b.png)
as grumbler mentioned, AFAIK, not only the USA healthcare was pretty far from any kind of proper welfare system (which is fine), but it managed to not be a welfare system by costing more than a proper working welfare system. Now that is some fucked up shit, so throwing their regular "omg we have a black prez, teh horror!" tantrum translated to a healthcare one is a bad idea.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 10:55:57 AM
That doesn't actually contradict what she said.
Yes it does. It didn't require bipartisan support.
No, it can still require bipartisan support. If for instance a bill has bipartisan opposition, and there is the need to overcome filibuster.
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 11:07:38 AM
Hell, even only 51% of Republicans are for repealing the law according to the poll I posted.
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/09/Morning-consult-2013-09b.png (http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/09/Morning-consult-2013-09b.png)
I think my opinion is to keep it as I've seen no evidence it would be better to go back to the drawing board. I'd rather energy be spent on changing it from within.
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 11:09:47 AM
as grumbler mentioned, AFAIK, not only the USA healthcare was pretty far from any kind of proper welfare system (which is fine), but it managed to not be a welfare system by costing more than a proper working welfare system. Now that is some fucked up shit, so throwing their regular "omg we have a black prez, teh horror!" tantrum translated to a healthcare one is a bad idea.
I'm so glad we have you to cut through the bullshit and provide clear insight into the American political system.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 11:09:51 AM
No, it can still require bipartisan support. If for instance a bill has bipartisan opposition, and there is the need to overcome filibuster.
What's with the present tense Raz. We're talking about something that already happened. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2013, 11:10:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 11:07:38 AM
Hell, even only 51% of Republicans are for repealing the law according to the poll I posted.
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/09/Morning-consult-2013-09b.png (http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/09/Morning-consult-2013-09b.png)
I think my opinion is to keep it as I've seen no evidence it would be better to go back to the drawing board. I'd rather energy be spent on changing it from within.
Yeah, I agree with this.
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2013, 11:10:04 AM
I think my opinion is to keep it as I've seen no evidence it would be better to go back to the drawing board. I'd rather energy be spent on changing it from within.
That's how MOST people feel. Which is why I'm so damn confused by what the Republicans are trying to do.
:hmm: It shouldn't be confusing to anyone... in fact I think it's abundantly clear that this is just political grandstanding.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 11:09:51 AM
No, it can still require bipartisan support. If for instance a bill has bipartisan opposition, and there is the need to overcome filibuster.
What's with the present tense Raz. We're talking about something that already happened. :huh:
You stated having a majority in the house doesn't require bi-partisan support, I brought up to situations where it would. As it stands one Republican in the house did vote for the bill.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 11:17:47 AM
:hmm: It shouldn't be confusing to anyone... in fact I think it's abundantly clear that this is just political grandstanding.
Lets hope they don't bust the debt ceiling over it :)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 11:19:04 AM
You stated having a majority in the house doesn't require bi-partisan support, I brought up to situations where it would. As it stands one Republican in the house did vote for the bill.
No I didn't. I stated Obamacare didn't require bipartisan support.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLhzAwuA.jpg&hash=3a5847f9cefe013246d7114a218e551b0b374275)
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2013, 11:10:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 11:09:47 AM
as grumbler mentioned, AFAIK, not only the USA healthcare was pretty far from any kind of proper welfare system (which is fine), but it managed to not be a welfare system by costing more than a proper working welfare system. Now that is some fucked up shit, so throwing their regular "omg we have a black prez, teh horror!" tantrum translated to a healthcare one is a bad idea.
I'm so glad we have you to cut through the bullshit and provide clear insight into the American political system.
My secretary will e-mail you the invoice of the consultancy fees.
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 11:41:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2013, 11:10:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 11:09:47 AM
as grumbler mentioned, AFAIK, not only the USA healthcare was pretty far from any kind of proper welfare system (which is fine), but it managed to not be a welfare system by costing more than a proper working welfare system. Now that is some fucked up shit, so throwing their regular "omg we have a black prez, teh horror!" tantrum translated to a healthcare one is a bad idea.
I'm so glad we have you to cut through the bullshit and provide clear insight into the American political system.
My secretary will e-mail you the invoice of the consultancy fees.
And my personal assistant will make sure to process it. :)
Payment of 25 beets is due today.
I find it interesting that your labor laws allow the government to just not pay its employees anymore when it suits current policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 11:34:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2013, 11:19:04 AM
You stated having a majority in the house doesn't require bi-partisan support, I brought up to situations where it would. As it stands one Republican in the house did vote for the bill.
No I didn't. I stated Obamacare didn't require bipartisan support.
I was under the impression you said
Quote
Obamacare became law before the first midterm, when Democrats controlled the House.
I pointed out that doesn't actually contradict what she said.
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2013, 11:48:29 AM
I find it interesting that your labor laws allow the government to just not pay its employees anymore when it suits current policy.
Lulz, "labor laws".
You win Raz.
Yi just punted on 2nd an 8.
What's the perception of bias regarding Quinnipiac polling? Are they seen as fairly reputable, or are they dismissed as partisan shills?
Depends on the results :P
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 01:34:41 PM
What's the perception of bias regarding Quinnipiac polling? Are they seen as fairly reputable, or are they dismissed as partisan shills?
In this instance, I would be more interested in polling among constituents of these House Republicans. That people in general don't like what they are doing isn't particularly useful as that isn't what will drive them to change course.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 01:45:45 PM
Depends on the results :P
:lol:
Here's their take on the current imbroglio: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958
Another tragic result of the shutdown.
KKK rally at Gettysburg cancelled: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/kkk-rally-canceled_n_4024192.html
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 02:05:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 01:45:45 PM
Depends on the results :P
:lol:
Here's their take on the current imbroglio: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958
Without clicking the link, I'm figuring you wouldn't post something that's good news for the GOP, and therefore it's all partisan shillery.
Okay, I clicked it. Confirmed :P
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 10:17:10 AMWhen I saw the fallout and that all essential workers and programs would continue to be paid/funded, I had to wonder: shouldn't everything the government does be essential, and shouldn't it not be doing anything beyond that? :hmm: :sleep:
Probably...though I would have to see a list of what is considered 'essential' and what isn't.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2013, 02:21:19 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2013, 10:17:10 AMWhen I saw the fallout and that all essential workers and programs would continue to be paid/funded, I had to wonder: shouldn't everything the government does be essential, and shouldn't it not be doing anything beyond that? :hmm: :sleep:
Probably...though I would have to see a list of what is considered 'essential' and what isn't.
I am essential. :)
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 01, 2013, 02:22:12 PM
I am essential. :)
You are probably not, but you are politically embarrasing to not pay :P
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:12:16 PM
Without clicking the link, I'm figuring you wouldn't post something that's good news for the GOP, and therefore it's all partisan shillery.
Okay, I clicked it. Confirmed :P
Honest question: do you think the current situation is going to help or hurt Republicans?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:12:16 PM
Without clicking the link, I'm figuring you wouldn't post something that's good news for the GOP, and therefore it's all partisan shillery.
Okay, I clicked it. Confirmed :P
Honest question: do you think the current situation is going to help or hurt Republicans?
As I mentioned 4 pages ago ( :P ) it will probably work against them. But they're kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't here.
Why damned if they don't?
Or do, whichever one is closing the gubmint.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 02:47:16 PM
Why damned if they don't?
Or do, whichever one is closing the gubmint.
If they had let Obamacare funding go through without a fight, they'd have pissed off a lot of their base and would have had their fingerprints on Obamacare (they voted to fund it!) later on when the ill-effects become even more pronounced.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:50:35 PM
If they had let Obamacare funding go through without a fight, they'd have pissed off a lot of their base and would have had their fingerprints on Obamacare (they voted to fund it!) later on when the ill-effects become even more pronounced.
One kook who stays home from the polls in protest is one vote lost. One swing voter who switches his vote is two votes lost.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:50:35 PM
If they had let Obamacare funding go through without a fight, they'd have pissed off a lot of their base and would have had their fingerprints on Obamacare (they voted to fund it!) later on when the ill-effects become even more pronounced.
:mellow:
Why are you just ignoring the fact that most people don't want Obamacare repealed?
:mellow:
He's not.
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 02:57:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:50:35 PM
If they had let Obamacare funding go through without a fight, they'd have pissed off a lot of their base and would have had their fingerprints on Obamacare (they voted to fund it!) later on when the ill-effects become even more pronounced.
:mellow:
Why are you just ignoring the fact that most people don't want Obamacare repealed?
See, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 02:55:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:50:35 PM
If they had let Obamacare funding go through without a fight, they'd have pissed off a lot of their base and would have had their fingerprints on Obamacare (they voted to fund it!) later on when the ill-effects become even more pronounced.
One kook who stays home from the polls in protest is one vote lost. One swing voter who switches his vote is two votes lost.
Sure. Swing voters sometimes stay home as well, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 02:55:41 PMOne kook who stays home from the polls in protest is one vote lost. One swing voter who switches his vote is two votes lost.
The theory I've seen advanced on the more leftists side of the spectrum is that the lucrative think-tank, PAC, and Conservative media circuit combined with heavily gerrymandered safe seats where the only risk is a primary challenge from the right, the incentives for most GOP representatives are to continue the rightward drift and ignore swing voters.
What do you think? Does it make sense or not?
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 03:06:53 PM
What do you think? Does it make sense or not?
From what I understand egregiously gerrymandered districts only exist in 6 GOP-majority states (and Illinois, a Democratic-majority state).
I don't think a majority of House seats can logically be safe GOP seats.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PMSee, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
Seems like the traditional way to address that in a democracy is to negotiate changes to the implementation through the normal legislative process.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 03:10:14 PMFrom what I understand egregiously gerrymandered districts only exist in 6 GOP-majority states (and Illinois, a Democratic-majority state).
I don't think a majority of House seats can logically be safe GOP seats.
You have a better read on the number of GOP safe seats than I do.
To clarify though, when it was put forward to me the argument wasn't that all GOP safe seats were such due to gerrymandering, but that gerrymandering increased the number of safe seats. In support of that, I was told that for Congress, the Democrats received the majority of the popular vote but the Republicans nonetheless received the majority of representatives.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PMSee, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
Seems like the traditional way to address that in a democracy is to negotiate changes to the implementation through the normal legislative process.
Okay.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
See, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
Of course they don't. I'm one of the biggest proponents for socialized healthcare in the US, and I hate the way it's been written.
But people don't want it repealed, either. And that's what these idiots are trying to do. They're not saying, "Hey, let's work on this law. Let's make it something that will actually work well for everyone."
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 10:39:36 AM
There's a question of the best way to go about doing that. Plus there's the issue of Obamacare being much harder to turn back once it's been in place for a period of time. I don't honestly know what the best strategy is for the GOP-- every one I can think of has serious negatives.
The thing is that the last presidential election was essentially "Should we repeal Obamacare?" If so, vote in Romney. And Romney lost. So it's fair to say that the majority of the US wants to keep Obamacare. It's been made into a law - which required bi-partisan approval to get it through the House - and signed by the president. Even the Supreme Court has said, "Yes, this is a valid law."
There are far better things to spend our time on than repealing something that most people want.
:lol:
actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today
i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2013, 02:57:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:50:35 PM
If they had let Obamacare funding go through without a fight, they'd have pissed off a lot of their base and would have had their fingerprints on Obamacare (they voted to fund it!) later on when the ill-effects become even more pronounced.
:mellow:
Why are you just ignoring the fact that most people don't want Obamacare repealed?
See, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
Well, duh.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today
i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford
Do you really think we will not spend even more after this? :lol:
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 03:32:28 PMi hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford
As I understand it, only 50% of the public debt is held by foreign governments; the remaining 50% are held by other American gov't entities, pension funds, mutual funds, banks, insurance companies, various corporations, individuals, and the Federal Reserve.
Regarding the lifestyle, you should be able to afford it if you rolled back a few of the recent tax cuts and refrained from any long term war and occupation commitments in the next little while.
What's the lifestyle "we" have, Peter?
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 01, 2013, 03:37:42 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today
i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford
Do you really think we will not spend even more after this? :lol:
Yeah, we are going to give all of those Federal workers back pay for them sitting around during the shutdown, but we'll never get back the lost labor. This isn't about responsible government, its about a minority throwing a hissy fit that even they have no idea how they will end, and no plan to actually gain anything from it.
Even for the most reactionary elements of the House Republicans, funding the government is "damned if you do, and double-damned if you don't."
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2013, 11:48:29 AM
I find it interesting that your labor laws allow the government to just not pay its employees anymore when it suits current policy.
There's conflicting laws. The laws regulating how the employees get paid can't trump the laws that say the government cannot legally spend money that hasn't been appropriated.
It's akin to a company that has a legal obligation to pay its employees, but has gone bankrupt and physically cannot because they lack money or even net assets they can sell off to make payroll. The company is dissolved and a great many people are unhappy. The U.S. Government actually has money in the bank account, but legally it's akin to that bankrupt company (at least when we're talking about non-essential employees), in that it can no more spend that money than a bankrupt company can spend money it does not have.
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
:lol:
QuoteHouse Leaders Plan to Use Ted Cruz's Strategy Next
(Newser) – House Republicans can't get one big spending bill through the Senate, so how about lots of little spending bills? That seems to be the strategy they're settling on, reports Roll Call, and it's one floated previously by the Senate's Ted Cruz. The House plans to vote on a series of separate bills that would keep individual agencies open through mid-December. The VA and the National Park Service are likely candidates. Still, don't expect this to solve anything, because comments from Democrats suggest they won't go along.
"They're trying to [do this] a little piecemeal, to give kind of a faux way of solving problems," says Sen. Barbara Mikulski. Politico suggests it's a move by John Boehner to try to show that Republicans are earnestly working toward a solution. President Obama, meanwhile, tried to sway public opinion himself in afternoon remarks in the Rose Garden, reports NBC News. "This Republican shutdown did not have to happen," he said. "But I want every American to understand why it did happen. They've shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/01/20772110-gop-to-try-restoring-some-small-portions-of-government-spending?lite
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 03:48:24 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 01, 2013, 03:37:42 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today
i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford
Do you really think we will not spend even more after this? :lol:
Yeah, we are going to give all of those Federal workers back pay for them sitting around during the shutdown, but we'll never get back the lost labor. This isn't about responsible government, its about a minority throwing a hissy fit that even they have no idea how they will end, and no plan to actually gain anything from it.
Even for the most reactionary elements of the House Republicans, funding the government is "damned if you do, and double-damned if you don't."
We are. These non excepted workers are furloughed. So, no pay.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 04:00:27 PMWe are. These non excepted workers are furloughed. So, no pay.
I was told that the previous 17 times the US government was shut down furloughed workers got their pay nonetheless once the government was funded again. It could be different this time, I don't know.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 04:06:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 04:00:27 PMWe are. These non excepted workers are furloughed. So, no pay.
I was told that the previous 17 times the US government was shut down furloughed workers got their pay nonetheless once the government was funded again. It could be different this time, I don't know.
Either way I know what I input for pay on non-excepted workers. If they do get it back, good for them.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 04:06:05 PM
I was told that the previous 17 times the US government was shut down furloughed workers got their pay nonetheless once the government was funded again. It could be different this time, I don't know.
Furloughed workers are required to come in for a half day, to tidy up or whatever. Your source may have been talking about pay for that half day, which is at the discretion of Congress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 04:09:51 PMFurloughed workers are required to come in for a half day, to tidy up or whatever. Your source may have been talking about pay for that half day, which is at the discretion of Congress.
It was just some dude on the internet, so take it for what it's worth, but the statement was not about the half-day but about the furlough itself.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
I took a gander around it this morning while I had the time, and it looks like I'll actually be able to get a decent package for less than $200/month range with deductibles and co-pays comparable to what I had before when I was employed--which is better than the $500/month I pay now.
So solly, you assholes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
I took a gander around it this morning while I had the time, and it looks like I'll actually be able to get a decent package for less than $200/month range with deductibles and co-pays comparable to what I had before when I was employed--which is better than the $500/month I pay now.
So solly, you assholes.
I truely hope it stays that way.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 04:18:23 PM
I truely hope it stays that way.
If it eclipses $500, you'll be the first to know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
I took a gander around it this morning while I had the time, and it looks like I'll actually be able to get a decent package for less than $200/month range with deductibles and co-pays comparable to what I had before when I was employed--which is better than the $500/month I pay now.
So solly, you assholes.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:19:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 04:18:23 PM
I truely hope it stays that way.
If it eclipses $500, you'll be the first to know.
How will it change if you find employment? Or does it change?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:17:01 PM
I took a gander around it this morning while I had the time, and it looks like I'll actually be able to get a decent package for less than $200/month range with deductibles and co-pays comparable to what I had before when I was employed--which is better than the $500/month I pay now.
So solly, you assholes.
Is that the price for bronze in Turtlestan?
Also, I assume that includes the subsidy?
Good for you, Seedy :hugz:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 04:21:01 PM
How will it change if you find employment? Or does it change?
I'm sure if I'm offered better coverage by an employer--as most employer packages I've had in the past have always been better, what with shared costs--I would go with them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 04:22:30 PM
Also, I assume that includes the subsidy?
I knocked it up to silver, taking the subsidy into consideration for my 2013 income. I'm not worried about the office co-pays as I am for the Rx co-pays, so that's what I'm targeting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
I knocked it up to silver, taking the subsidy into consideration for my 2013 income. I'm not worried about the office co-pays as I am for the Rx co-pays, so that's what I'm targeting.
How much would the silver cost without the free money?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
I knocked it up to silver, taking the subsidy into consideration for my 2013 income. I'm not worried about the office co-pays as I am for the Rx co-pays, so that's what I'm targeting.
How much would the silver cost without the free money?
From what I saw this AM--site's clogged now, go fig--it would be a $133/month subsidy, so that would shoot it into the low $300s.
If I can get back in once the traffic drops, I'll copy and paste some of the packages.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:32:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 04:23:10 PM
Good for you, Seedy :hugz:
Oh, bullshit. :P :P :P
Serious. I think the overall program is a foolish disaster, but I'm glad you're getting some benefit from it. COBRA sucks ass.
ITS DESTROYED TEH INTRAWEB
QuoteWe are currently experiencing a high volume of traffic on MarylandHealthConnection.gov and we want to make the experience as positive for everyone as possible. Please check back later. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 04:36:59 PM
Serious. I think the overall program is a foolish disaster, but I'm glad you're getting some benefit from it. COBRA sucks ass.
And how. What a racket COBRA is. Granted, I'm glad it's 18 months long, but it's hardcore extortion.
My understanding is that COBRA prices are what the insurer used to charge your employer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 04:39:41 PM
My understanding is that COBRA prices are what the insurer used to charge your employer.
Yep.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 01, 2013, 03:50:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2013, 11:48:29 AM
I find it interesting that your labor laws allow the government to just not pay its employees anymore when it suits current policy.
There's conflicting laws. The laws regulating how the employees get paid can't trump the laws that say the government cannot legally spend money that hasn't been appropriated.
It's akin to a company that has a legal obligation to pay its employees, but has gone bankrupt and physically cannot because they lack money or even net assets they can sell off to make payroll. The company is dissolved and a great many people are unhappy. The U.S. Government actually has money in the bank account, but legally it's akin to that bankrupt company (at least when we're talking about non-essential employees), in that it can no more spend that money than a bankrupt company can spend money it does not have.
Yeah, but the fact that the money has to be separately appropriated is what's so silly. Sure, it's legal, but the creation and practice of law is fundamentally evil.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 04:36:59 PM
Serious. I think the overall program is a foolish disaster, but I'm glad you're getting some benefit from it. COBRA sucks ass.
And how. What a racket COBRA is. Granted, I'm glad it's 18 months long, but it's hardcore extortion.
Be glad your previous employer wasn't Raytheon. My portion of my health benefits were $316/month; COBRA would have cost me $1264/month.
Yowza.
Now see, that's just silly.
Save it for the trade journals, industry pawn.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 06:09:51 PM
Save it for the trade journals, industry pawn.
Thank you for funding my salary. :hug:
You'll get yours one day. When there are no more pills to take.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 04:06:05 PM
I was told that the previous 17 times the US government was shut down furloughed workers got their pay nonetheless once the government was funded again. It could be different this time, I don't know.
Furloughed workers are required to come in for a half day, to tidy up or whatever. Your source may have been talking about pay for that half day, which is at the discretion of Congress.
In the past the workers have been compensated for all the pay they lost due to a shutdown. All such pay is at the discretion of Congress, but I cannot imagine Congress making that kind of stink for themselves (accepting pay while they voluntarily sit out of their jobs, but denying it to other federal workers forced to sit out of their jobs because of Congressional failure).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2013, 06:15:25 PM
You'll get yours one day. When there are no more pills to take.
So when I'm dead? I can liv...be okay with that.
Michelle Obama is limiting her posts on Twitter due to the shutdown. Not sure how that caused it, but that's a small win for the GOP-- and everyone else.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 06:52:05 PM
Michelle Obama is limiting her posts on Twitter due to the shutdown.
Fuck. :(
It appears that the exchanges are way more popular than anticipated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/01/obamacares-marketplaces-are-overwhelmed-with-traffic/
Could be morbid curiosity, or it could reflect an appetite for the plans.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
Remember when 11B4V was pretending to be a "moderate"? How's that shtick working out?
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
Remember when 11B4V was pretending to be a "moderate"? How's that shtick working out?
He might be working double shifts. He was a civilian contractor for DoD and 50% of those guys got furloughed. He's suppose to be giving me his name, and address so I can send him 20 dollars. I need more names for my files :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 04:15:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2013, 04:09:51 PMFurloughed workers are required to come in for a half day, to tidy up or whatever. Your source may have been talking about pay for that half day, which is at the discretion of Congress.
It was just some dude on the internet, so take it for what it's worth, but the statement was not about the half-day but about the furlough itself.
Do you want me to just ask my dad?
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
Remember when 11B4V was pretending to be a "moderate"? How's that shtick working out?
Unsure what your pretending here.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2013, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
Remember when 11B4V was pretending to be a "moderate"? How's that shtick working out?
He might be working double shifts. He was a civilian contractor for DoD and 50% of those guys got furloughed. He's suppose to be giving me his name, and address so I can send him 20 dollars. I need more names for my files :mad:
I was a contractor for a short time. Been a full fledged civy servant since 2006. None of the Police or contract security (G4S) got furloughed during this BS or during the sequester BS. :blurgh:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2013, 01:16:43 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
Remember when 11B4V was pretending to be a "moderate"? How's that shtick working out?
Unsure what your pretending here.
:hmm: What source language am I supposed to put in Google Translate for this?
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 01:25:44 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2013, 01:16:43 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
Remember when 11B4V was pretending to be a "moderate"? How's that shtick working out?
Unsure what your pretending here.
:hmm: What source language am I supposed to put in Google Translate for this?
Ah, just being your normal douchey self then. Carry-on.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 06:16:13 PM
In the past the workers have been compensated for all the pay they lost due to a shutdown. All such pay is at the discretion of Congress, but I cannot imagine Congress making that kind of stink for themselves (accepting pay while they voluntarily sit out of their jobs, but denying it to other federal workers forced to sit out of their jobs because of Congressional failure).
:yes:
And several House Republicans are already making noise that they will be happy to pay the backpay once the Democrats get out of their way.
This shut-down isn't going to save the gubm't a dime.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 01, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
So, how are the health insurance exchanges working out for people.
Remember when 11B4V was pretending to be a "moderate"? How's that shtick working out?
He voted for Obama.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 01, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today
Um the Government has only been shut down for a few hours, I doubt you interact much with the Feds anyway much less on an hourly basis.
Anyway who the heck knows what the impact of this will be? I am not even sure what agencies will actually be impacted and what the impact on the world economy and financial markets might be.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
See, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
I have no idea what Obamacare actually says. It is a bloated and ridiculously byzantine law. All I know is that the Insurance Companies like it which probably does not bode well for me.
Of course the Republicans could have stepped in and had a larger say and moderated the bill but their grand strategy has been going for broke and all out victory. The result is partially a result of their own political strategy. Not that the bill would have been any less bloated or more comprehensible in any case.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 06:52:05 PM
Michelle Obama is limiting her posts on Twitter due to the shutdown. Not sure how that caused it, but that's a small win for the GOP-- and everyone else.
Eh I handle this by not following Michelle Obama on twitter. People still freaking retweet the freaking White House all the time though. Meh.
I don't go on twitter. I've been getting non-stop emails from twitter about them resetting my password as it has been hacked. Who bothers hacking the twitter account of someone like me?
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2013, 08:35:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
See, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
I have no idea what Obamacare actually says. It is a bloated and ridiculously byzantine law. All I know is that the Insurance Companies like it which probably does not bode well for me.
Of course the Republicans could have stepped in and had a larger say and moderated the bill but their grand strategy has been going for broke and all out victory. The result is partially a result of their own political strategy. Not that the bill would have been any less bloated or more comprehensible in any case.
:yes:
This is really what pisses me off. The Republicans could have - and still can - help make it a better bill for everyone. Instead of budging a milimeter, they're still trying to kill it. It just makes them look like total assholes who are ultimately trying to harm the US's bests interests.
I know that derspeiss isn't going to agree (and probably Yi) because they don't want any kind of socialized healthcare. The reality is that the US as a whole has to have something for the uninsurable or the costs will never be under control for everyone else. As it stands, the uninsurable keep racking up billions of dollars of medical care that everyone else has to pay through their own medical costs. Insuring everyone at least has the potential of spreading those costs out more equitably, and allowing the uninsurable some form of coverage.
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2013, 08:54:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2013, 08:35:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
See, that cuts both ways. It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.
I have no idea what Obamacare actually says. It is a bloated and ridiculously byzantine law. All I know is that the Insurance Companies like it which probably does not bode well for me.
Of course the Republicans could have stepped in and had a larger say and moderated the bill but their grand strategy has been going for broke and all out victory. The result is partially a result of their own political strategy. Not that the bill would have been any less bloated or more comprehensible in any case.
:yes:
This is really what pisses me off. The Republicans could have - and still can - help make it a better bill for everyone. Instead of budging a milimeter, they're still trying to kill it. It just makes them look like total assholes who are ultimately trying to harm the US's bests interests.
I know that derspeiss isn't going to agree (and probably Yi) because they don't want any kind of socialized healthcare. The reality is that the US as a whole has to have something for the uninsurable or the costs will never be under control for everyone else. As it stands, the uninsurable keep racking up billions of dollars of medical care that everyone else has to pay through their own medical costs. Insuring everyone at least has the potential of spreading those costs out more equitably, and allowing the uninsurable some form of coverage.
I think the only counterpoint, if you think we should have a revamp of healthcare, is that the current law, as is, is to f'd up to actually be a good base to start making changes from. To be honest though, it all is a bit above my comprehension (outside my immediate interest) that I don't really know enough to say if that's true or not.
Also, though on a whole it is pretty abysmal, I did like the recent SNL sketch with Obama trying to bring out people to help everyone understand the new impact law.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 08:57:08 AM
I think the only counterpoint, if you think we should have a revamp of healthcare, is that the current law, as is, is to f'd up to actually be a good base to start making changes from. To be honest though, it all is a bit above my comprehension (outside my immediate interest) that I don't really know enough to say if that's true or not.
Yeah this is pretty much where I am to. All I know is, as per usual, neither party is exactly covering themselves in glory here.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2013, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 06:52:05 PM
Michelle Obama is limiting her posts on Twitter due to the shutdown. Not sure how that caused it, but that's a small win for the GOP-- and everyone else.
Eh I handle this by not following Michelle Obama on twitter. People still freaking retweet the freaking White House all the time though. Meh.
Yeah. I am amused by the fact that spicey follows Michelle Obama on twitter.
I am amused that you think I do.
I'm just amused.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 08:57:08 AM
I think the only counterpoint, if you think we should have a revamp of healthcare, is that the current law, as is, is to f'd up to actually be a good base to start making changes from. To be honest though, it all is a bit above my comprehension (outside my immediate interest) that I don't really know enough to say if that's true or not.
Bushcare
is the base from which Obamacare is making changes. The problem is that the Right-wing Republicans are happy with Bushcare, with its 10+% per-year cost increases, because the folks who own the right-wing Republicans are the ones pocketing the change.
Personally, i think that the health care system that should be the basis of the US health care discussion is the German one. It is cheaper per capita (whole country, not persons covered) than Bushcare
or Obamacare are in tax dollars right now, covers more than twice as many people, has a significantly higher satisfaction rate, has a reasonable opt-out provision, and produces a superior outcome. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't allow infinite profits for the health care industry. it seems like such a no-brainer that, while I can understand Congress not getting it, I don't understand why others (like the White House) don't get it.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2013, 09:01:09 AM
I am amused that you think I do.
And I am amused by you breathlessly reporting on her twitter posting habits, like any of us possibly care (maybe CdM, but I expect he also follws her, and so already knew).
I don't want to discourage your Timmay-like reports on celebrity twitter usage, though. They are, as I note, amusing.
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 09:06:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 08:57:08 AM
I think the only counterpoint, if you think we should have a revamp of healthcare, is that the current law, as is, is to f'd up to actually be a good base to start making changes from. To be honest though, it all is a bit above my comprehension (outside my immediate interest) that I don't really know enough to say if that's true or not.
Bushcare is the base from which Obamacare is making changes. The problem is that the Right-wing Republicans are happy with Bushcare, with its 10+% per-year cost increases, because the folks who own the right-wing Republicans are the ones pocketing the change.
Personally, i think that the health care system that should be the basis of the US health care discussion is the German one. It is cheaper per capita (whole country, not persons covered) than Bushcare or Obamacare are in tax dollars right now, covers more than twice as many people, has a significantly higher satisfaction rate, has a reasonable opt-out provision, and produces a superior outcome. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't allow infinite profits for the health care industry. it seems like such a no-brainer that, while I can understand Congress not getting it, I don't understand why others (like the White House) don't get it.
Presumably others have been purchased as well unless being owned is something that only happens to Republicans.
Also, I don't think Bushcare is going to catch on as a term.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 08:57:08 AM
I think the only counterpoint, if you think we should have a revamp of healthcare, is that the current law, as is, is to f'd up to actually be a good base to start making changes from. To be honest though, it all is a bit above my comprehension (outside my immediate interest) that I don't really know enough to say if that's true or not.
Also, though on a whole it is pretty abysmal, I did like the recent SNL sketch with Obama trying to bring out people to help everyone understand the new impact law.
There's good and bad to it.
The good:
* Everyone can get insurance now, something 25% of the population couldn't do before.
* Insurance is based on your age, where you live, and whether or not you smoke. That's it. No more 150% increase because you're a woman of childbearing years (whether or not you have a uterus anymore), nor 130% increase because you're a man over the age of 50.
* Insurance companies have to compete directly with one another for the individual person now, instead of just for lucrative contracts with companies, giving employees some more direct control over who insures them.
The bad:
* It's going to be expensive for the time being because there have been zero controls on insurance companies.
* It's going to cost the gubm't quite a bit in subsidies, and there doesn't appear to be much by way of paying those out of the budget.
* There are still far too many loop holes for private companies and insurance companies to "opt out" of certain requirements, making many of those requirements pretty much worthless.
* Younger folks pay less than older folks, but they still pay about 150% more than they did before ACA. That's too much, imo, if you want them to actually pay for insurance.
There are a lot more, but those are the obvious ones off the top of my head.
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 09:06:16 AM
Bushcare is the base from which Obamacare is making changes. The problem is that the Right-wing Republicans are happy with Bushcare, with its 10+% per-year cost increases, because the folks who own the right-wing Republicans are the ones pocketing the change.
Personally, i think that the health care system that should be the basis of the US health care discussion is the German one. It is cheaper per capita (whole country, not persons covered) than Bushcare or Obamacare are in tax dollars right now, covers more than twice as many people, has a significantly higher satisfaction rate, has a reasonable opt-out provision, and produces a superior outcome. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't allow infinite profits for the health care industry. it seems like such a no-brainer that, while I can understand Congress not getting it, I don't understand why others (like the White House) don't get it.
Abso-fucking-lutely. I've been begging Max to look into Germany as a possible place to relocate, primarily because of their healthcare program.
But then, you'll have to live with Poles!
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 09:08:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2013, 09:01:09 AM
I am amused that you think I do.
And I am amused by you breathlessly reporting on her twitter posting habits, like any of us possibly care (maybe CdM, but I expect he also follws her, and so already knew).
I don't want to discourage your Timmay-like reports on celebrity twitter usage, though. They are, as I note, amusing.
:yawn:
No Air Force-Navy game. :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 02, 2013, 09:34:35 AM
But then, you'll have to live with Poles!
Maybe they'll be instrumental in founding the Polish-German Union. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 02, 2013, 09:40:57 AM
No Air Force-Navy game. :(
Last i heard that wasn't gonna be announced till thur noon EDT
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2013, 09:15:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 08:57:08 AM
I think the only counterpoint, if you think we should have a revamp of healthcare, is that the current law, as is, is to f'd up to actually be a good base to start making changes from. To be honest though, it all is a bit above my comprehension (outside my immediate interest) that I don't really know enough to say if that's true or not.
Also, though on a whole it is pretty abysmal, I did like the recent SNL sketch with Obama trying to bring out people to help everyone understand the new impact law.
There's good and bad to it.
The good:
* Everyone can get insurance now, something 25% of the population couldn't do before.
* Insurance is based on your age, where you live, and whether or not you smoke. That's it. No more 150% increase because you're a woman of childbearing years (whether or not you have a uterus anymore), nor 130% increase because you're a man over the age of 50.
* Insurance companies have to compete directly with one another for the individual person now, instead of just for lucrative contracts with companies, giving employees some more direct control over who insures them.
The bad:
* It's going to be expensive for the time being because there have been zero controls on insurance companies.
* It's going to cost the gubm't quite a bit in subsidies, and there doesn't appear to be much by way of paying those out of the budget.
* There are still far too many loop holes for private companies and insurance companies to "opt out" of certain requirements, making many of those requirements pretty much worthless.
* Younger folks pay less than older folks, but they still pay about 150% more than they did before ACA. That's too much, imo, if you want them to actually pay for insurance.
There are a lot more, but those are the obvious ones off the top of my head.
Thanks! :)
:hmm: still haven't missed the federal government
Quote from: Rasputin on October 02, 2013, 11:22:08 AM
:hmm: still haven't missed the federal government
You hate history?
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2013, 09:17:24 AM
Abso-fucking-lutely. I've been begging Max to look into Germany as a possible place to relocate, primarily because of their healthcare program.
Would you really move to a country primarily because of health care? I can see if you had a debilitating disease or something that required special care, but other than special cases like that I can't imagine it being even in the top ten reasons to do that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 02, 2013, 11:23:39 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 02, 2013, 11:22:08 AM
:hmm: still haven't missed the federal government
You hate history?
No, he has brain damage. Randian Objectivist. Poor bastard. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 02, 2013, 11:30:27 AM
Would you really move to a country primarily because of health care? I can see if you had a debilitating disease or something that required special care, but other than special cases like that I can't imagine it being even in the top ten reasons to do that.
I have one of those. :mellow:
Quote from: Rasputin on October 02, 2013, 11:22:08 AM
:hmm: still haven't missed the federal government
Again, what exactly do you do with the Feds that made you think them being shut down for a few hours was going to impact you personally?
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 09:06:16 AM
Bushcare is the base from which Obamacare is making changes. The problem is that the Right-wing Republicans are happy with Bushcare, with its 10+% per-year cost increases, because the folks who own the right-wing Republicans are the ones pocketing the change.
I don't think that the motivation for Republicans, though. I think what Republicans are really scared of is Obamacare working, or at least not crashing and burning. It's a pretty insidious motivation if true, but there is a reason that psychopaths are over-represented in politics.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 09:06:16 AM
Bushcare is the base from which Obamacare is making changes. The problem is that the Right-wing Republicans are happy with Bushcare, with its 10+% per-year cost increases, because the folks who own the right-wing Republicans are the ones pocketing the change.
I don't think that the motivation for Republicans, though. I think what Republicans are really scared of is Obamacare working, or at least not crashing and burning. It's a pretty insidious motivation if true, but there is a reason that psychopaths are over-represented in politics.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 12:16:09 PM:lol:
Well... it's not true for Republican voters, of course, but for the politicians?
I mean... if Obamacare is actually as disastrous as Republicans claim, why keep fighting it? Why not let it go through and let the Democrats reap what they sowed?
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 12:30:38 PM
I mean... if Obamacare is actually as disastrous as Republicans claim, why keep fighting it? Why not let it go through and let the Democrats reap what they sowed?
Because they don't actually want the country "destroyed" as they see it? Besides, a policy can be bad and have terrible consequences and yet stay in place (aka not fail).
The Republicans are fighting this because they know it is the last change to stop the overall move to government provided healthcare.
Obamacare might be terrible, but once it is in place, no matter how badly it works or doesn't work, the discourse will shift to not whether we should have single player, government managed healthcare, but rather to how to make it work better.
Which is why the Dems are willing to go ahead with what is obviously a pretty much crap solution.
Both sides are doing exactly what it makes sense for them to do given their ideologies. The Republicans have to fight this tooth and nail, it is their last chance.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 12:30:38 PM
Well... it's not true for Republican voters, of course, but for the politicians?
I mean... if Obamacare is actually as disastrous as Republicans claim, why keep fighting it? Why not let it go through and let the Democrats reap what they sowed?
Why not default and let the Republicans reap what they sowed?
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 12:30:38 PM
I mean... if Obamacare is actually as disastrous as Republicans claim, why keep fighting it? Why not let it go through and let the Democrats reap what they sowed?
Because once a government policy goes into place it is very difficult to reverse. They know once ObamaCare goes into effect getting rid of it will be almost tantamount to political suicide. You just need a certain critical mass of people and businesses who benefit from something and it is almost untouchable no matter if it benefits the country as a whole or not.
I mean look at the freaking farm subsidies. Almost everybody hates them but if they were ever seriously challenged lots of people would get tossed out of office.
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 08:58:21 AM
Yeah. I am amused by the fact that spicey follows Michelle Obama on twitter.
He has some kind of obsession with her. He's constantly going on about her hair, her teeth, her arms etc.
Saw this on Facebook and immediately thought of you guys:
"More guards at WWII Memorial than at Benghazi"
:D
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2013, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 08:58:21 AM
Yeah. I am amused by the fact that spicey follows Michelle Obama on twitter.
He has some kind of obsession with her. He's constantly going on about her hair, her teeth, her arms etc.
Oh, I do, I do. I must mention her at least 2 or 3 times a year!
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2013, 12:55:10 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2013, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 08:58:21 AM
Yeah. I am amused by the fact that spicey follows Michelle Obama on twitter.
He has some kind of obsession with her. He's constantly going on about her hair, her teeth, her arms etc.
Oh, I do, I do. I must mention her at least 2 or 3 times a year!
Which would be 2 or 3 more times than I hear anyone else talk about her.
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2013, 12:56:48 PM
Which would be 2 or 3 more times than I hear anyone else talk about her.
You're lucky, then.
So Barry made sure our active duty military will get paid right? And who manages DFAS? Civilians that have been furloughed! :lol:
I guess Siege will get paid... eventually. Same as all other fed employees.
The more I read about this, the more sad I get for our country, what a mess. Freaking congress and senate should be cleaned out, all of them.
I wish term limits were brought back .
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2013, 12:56:48 PM
Which would be 2 or 3 more times than I hear anyone else talk about her.
You're lucky, then.
My guess would be that it's not luck, but rather great prudence in the company Max keeps. Michelle Obama is only even remotely interesting to those who wish to mock her.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 12:36:42 PMWhy not default and let the Republicans reap what they sowed?
Isn't that what's going to happen?
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2013, 12:37:09 PMBecause once a government policy goes into place it is very difficult to reverse. They know once ObamaCare goes into effect getting rid of it will be almost tantamount to political suicide. You just need a certain critical mass of people and businesses who benefit from something and it is almost untouchable no matter if it benefits the country as a whole or not.
I mean look at the freaking farm subsidies. Almost everybody hates them but if they were ever seriously challenged lots of people would get tossed out of office.
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 12:36:42 PMWhy not default and let the Republicans reap what they sowed?
Isn't that what's going to happen?
I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 12:30:38 PM
Well... it's not true for Republican voters, of course, but for the politicians?
I mean... if Obamacare is actually as disastrous as Republicans claim, why keep fighting it? Why not let it go through and let the Democrats reap what they sowed?
Why not default and let the Republicans reap what they sowed?
I'm open to buyout negotiations for our bet.
No, takes backs. Anything can happen in politics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 01:16:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 12:36:42 PMWhy not default and let the Republicans reap what they sowed?
Isn't that what's going to happen?
I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
That was my answer - I think the default will happen if the Republicans try to use the debt ceiling to defund Obamacare, and do not back down. There is an outside chance of Obama stepping in with a 14th amendment argument that he debt ceiling law is unconstitutional and thus he'll ignore it, but it's miniscule.
If the Republicans are willing to pull the trigger on a default if Obamacare is not defunded, the Dems won't stop them.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 01:27:38 PM
That was my answer - I think the default will happen if the Republicans try to use the debt ceiling to defund Obamacare, and do not back down. There is an outside chance of Obama stepping in with a 14th amendment argument that he debt ceiling law is unconstitutional and thus he'll ignore it, but it's miniscule.
If the Republicans are willing to pull the trigger on a default if Obamacare is not defunded, the Dems won't stop them.
That's not the question.
You said Republicans should let O-care be implemented so that the public will see how horrible it is and punish the Democrats.
I asked shouldn't the same logic dictate that Democrats allow a default out of political self interest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 01:31:17 PMThat's not the question.
You said Republicans should let O-care be implemented so that the public will see how horrible it is and punish the Democrats.
I asked shouldn't the same logic dictate that Democrats allow a default out of political self interest.
Ignoring your biased framing for a moment: they should, and they are. The Democrats have nowhere to go; if the Republicans are willing to pull the trigger on a default over defunding Obamacare, the Democrats won't stop them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 01:20:01 PM
No, takes backs. Anything can happen in politics.
Drat, that was a couple pizzas. :(
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 01:35:18 PM
Ignoring your biased framing for a moment: they should, and they are. The Democrats have nowhere to go; if the Republicans are willing to pull the trigger on a default over defunding Obamacare, the Democrats won't stop them.
Now that the moment's over, tell me how the framing is biased.
You're still ducking the question BTW. The question is not about the outcome, it's about allowing ostensibly bad policy for political gain.
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 09:08:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2013, 09:01:09 AM
I am amused that you think I do.
And I am amused by you breathlessly reporting on her twitter posting habits, like any of us possibly care (maybe CdM, but I expect he also follws her, and so already knew).
I tweet not and don't read any either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 01:38:16 PMNow that the moment's over, tell me how the framing is biased.
:lol: :hug:
You are equating two different outcomes as being equal by framing them both as "political gain" when one is orders of magnitude worse than the other.
On one hand you have accepting a law which, however difficult it may be, can be amended and repealed in future legislative sessions if the voters empower it, and on which opinions are divided; on the other hand you have triggering an irreversible economic disaster, which it is universally agreed will have far reaching and negative consequences, furthermore it normalizes the idea that it is acceptable for the party which is out of power to hold the economy hostage to enact their agenda.
Secondly, by framing it as "Democrats allowing it" you are rhetorically shifting the responsibility for Republican actions to the Democrats.
QuoteYou're still ducking the question BTW. The question is not about the outcome, it's about allowing ostensibly bad policy for political gain
It is not the Democrats who are allowing it. It is the Republicans who are actively causing it.
But - for the second moment of ignoring your biased framing - the Democrats will and should allow it. Not for political gain, but because they have no other choice.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2013, 12:55:10 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2013, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 08:58:21 AM
Yeah. I am amused by the fact that spicey follows Michelle Obama on twitter.
He has some kind of obsession with her. He's constantly going on about her hair, her teeth, her arms etc.
Oh, I do, I do. I must mention her at least 2 or 3 times a year!
Actually this is the 38th time this year. :smarty:
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2013, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 02, 2013, 11:22:08 AM
:hmm: still haven't missed the federal government
Again, what exactly do you do with the Feds that made you think them being shut down for a few hours was going to impact you personally?
Some of my clients use their courts; we have state courts here in florida though. All will be fine.
A good answer for the most part Jacob.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 01:51:04 PM
But - for the second moment of ignoring your biased framing - the Democrats will and should allow it. Not for political gain, but because they have no other choice.
What about a coup d'etat? We have the loyalty of the legions.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 02:58:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 01:51:04 PM
But - for the second moment of ignoring your biased framing - the Democrats will and should allow it. Not for political gain, but because they have no other choice.
What about a coup d'etat? We have the loyalty of the legions.
Miller Lite does.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 03:01:43 PM
He's right. You may consider it a very bad choice, but there is a choice.
I think it's way worse than a very bad choice, it's a corruption of the whole US political system. We have a portion of one representative body holding hostage the government and blackmailing the other representative body and the executive to reverse previously passed legislation (and can theoretically do it again on a regular basis over any issue). There's no way that should be allowed to work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 03:01:43 PMHe's right. You may consider it a very bad choice, but there is a choice.
That's not what he said, though.
Quote from: frunk on October 02, 2013, 03:10:07 PM
I think it's way worse than a very bad choice, it's a corruption of the whole US political system. We have a portion of one representative body holding hostage the government and blackmailing the other representative body and the executive to reverse previously passed legislation (can can theoretically do it again on a regular basis over any issue). There's no way that should be allowed to work.
It seems to me to be built in to the US political system. Every year the spending for nonentitlement spending has to be agreed to by both houses of Congress.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 03:01:43 PMHe's right. You may consider it a very bad choice, but there is a choice.
That's not what he said, though.
That is what I was implying though.
But you don't understand frunk, they really really hate obamacare.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:14:43 PMThat is what I was implying though.
:yeahright:
It was. You said that they have no other choice. They do, it just isn't palatable.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:16:00 PMIt was. You said that they have no other choice. They do, it just isn't palatable.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:16:00 PMIt was. You said that they have no other choice. They do, it just isn't palatable.
:rolleyes:
:)
I forgot that I should have written several paragraphs as my initial reply. -_-
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 03:14:27 PM
It seems to me to be built in to the US political system. Every year the spending for nonentitlement spending has to be agreed to by both houses of Congress.
Is there any precedent where the budget was held up past the deadline in order to repeal a previously passed piece of legislation, rather than creating a separate bill to explicitly repeal it?
Quote from: frunk on October 02, 2013, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 03:14:27 PM
It seems to me to be built in to the US political system. Every year the spending for nonentitlement spending has to be agreed to by both houses of Congress.
Is there any precedent where the budget was held up past the deadline in order to repeal a previously passed piece of legislation, rather than creating a separate bill to explicitly repeal it?
I was wondering that myself.
Quote from: frunk on October 02, 2013, 03:28:46 PM
Is there any precedent where the budget was held up past the deadline in order to repeal a previously passed piece of legislation, rather than creating a separate bill to explicitly repeal it?
There is no repeal of Obamacare. It's still the law of the land.
And I assume you're aware that Republicans have proposed separate funding bills for things like Interior and Veterans and told that Democrats will vote those down.
Here's a history of reasons, haven't looked at it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:21:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:16:00 PMIt was. You said that they have no other choice. They do, it just isn't palatable.
:rolleyes:
:)
I forgot that I should have written several paragraphs as my initial reply. -_-
I was implying that your understatement made your suggestion border on the ludicrous.
I prefer to be ludicrous by overstatement.
At what point will Republicans simply admit defeat turn their attention elsewhere?
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:21:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:16:00 PMIt was. You said that they have no other choice. They do, it just isn't palatable.
:rolleyes:
:)
I forgot that I should have written several paragraphs as my initial reply. -_-
I was implying that your understatement made your suggestion border on the ludicrous.
Sure, I can understand that you could hold such a point of view.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2013, 01:12:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2013, 12:56:48 PM
Which would be 2 or 3 more times than I hear anyone else talk about her.
You're lucky, then.
My guess would be that it's not luck, but rather great prudence in the company Max keeps. Michelle Obama is only even remotely interesting to those who wish to mock stalk her.
FYPFY
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 03:49:00 PMSure, I can understand that you could hold such a point of view.
See Ide? A liberal arts education, right there.
:cry:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 02, 2013, 03:28:46 PM
Is there any precedent where the budget was held up past the deadline in order to repeal a previously passed piece of legislation, rather than creating a separate bill to explicitly repeal it?
There is no repeal of Obamacare. It's still the law of the land.
And I assume you're aware that Republicans have proposed separate funding bills for things like Interior and Veterans and told that Democrats will vote those down.
The initial threats were for repeal, it was gradually softened to delays in attempts to get it to work.
Quote from: frunk on October 02, 2013, 04:23:15 PMThe initial threats were for repeal, it was gradually softened to delays in attempts to get it to work.
"Delays", yes. "To get it to work", no.
As I understand it, if the individual mandate is delayed the whole edifice is likely to self-destruct. So a delay to the individual mandate is essentially a repeal.
I think he means get it to work in the sense of getting enough votes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 04:38:15 PM
I think he means get it to work in the sense of getting enough votes.
Asoka
My Army Reserve duty this weekend has been cancelled. :cry:
German media, in their usual knee jerk reaction have asked, "Could this happen in Germany???"
One political scientist, saying "Nope" also explained the history in Germany: apparently Bismarck at one point faced a similar situation when he wanted funds to expand the army, but parliament rejected the budget that contained it. He basically ignored them with the attributed quote, "The government must continue to function" which has become a German state principle.
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2013, 10:33:35 PM
German media, in their usual knee jerk reaction have asked, "Could this happen in Germany???"
One political scientist, saying "Nope" also explained the history in Germany: apparently Bismarck at one point faced a similar situation when he wanted funds to expand the army, but parliament rejected the budget that contained it. He basically ignored them with the attributed quote, "The government must continue to function" which has become a German state principle.
The key word is "continue".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html
QuoteHouse Republicans are continuing to play hardball in negotiations over the spending bill that precipitated the government shutdown on Oct. 1, apparently out of fear that compromise would weaken their power.
"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
The GOP spent much of Wednesday blaming President Barack Obama and the Democrats for the effects of the shutdown, which led to the furlough of 800,000 workers and the closure of numerous government services. They failed to mention that the spending bill didn't pass because they loaded the bill with restrictions on the Affordable Care Act, a law that passed in 2010 and was found constitutional by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
In an effort to end the shutdown, Democrats are seeking the passage of a "clean" continuing resolution to fund the government while further negotiations on the budget take place. Most, if not all, Democrats would vote for it, and enough Republicans are publicly now on board to pass it.
At the time of this writing, however, such a vote is still being thwarted by the GOP leadership.
I thought Douthat was interesting on this:
QuoteWhy The Right Fights
To understand how we ended up in this strange political moment, with the federal government shuttered in pursuit of a political goal that most elected Republicans concede is well-nigh-impossible to achieve, it's worth talking not only about polarization and redistricting and the conservative media landscape and anti-Obama sentiment and the weakening of institutional party power, but also about a more basic, often-underappreciated element in how many movement conservatives regard the history of the last forty years. To explain this point, I'll start with a quote from David Frum's great book "Dead Right," which was written in the early 1990s, in what seemed like a period of exhaustion and defeat for limited-government conservatism, just before the 1994 congressional sweep gave that movement new political life. Here's how the Frum of that era — who was much more of a small-government rigorist than he is today — depicted the Reagan years and their implications for the right:
Quote
However heady the 1980s may have looked to everyone else, they were for conservatives a testing and disillusioning time. Conservatives owned the executive branch for eight years and had great influence over it for four more; they dominated the Senate for six years; and by the end of the decade they exercised near complete control over the federal judiciary. And yet, every time they reached to undo the work of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon — the work they had damned for nearly half a century — they felt the public's wary eyes upon them. They didn't dare, and they realized that they didn't dare. Their moment came and flickered. And as the power of the conservative movement slowly ebbed after 1986, and then roared away in 1992, the conservatives who had lived through that attack of faintheartedness shamefacedly felt that they had better hurry up and find something else to talk about ...
What this passage gets at is the deep, abiding gulf between the widespread conservative idea of what a true Conservative Moment would look like and the mainstream idea of the same. For the American mainstream — moderate and apolitical as well as liberal — the Reagan era really was a kind of conservative answer to the New Deal era: A period when the right's ideas were ascendant, its constituencies empowered, its favored policies pursued. But to many on the right, for the reasons the Frum of "Dead Right" suggested, it was something much more limited and fragmented and incomplete: A period when their side held power, yes, but one in which the framework and assumptions of politics remained essentially left-of-center, because the administrative state was curbed but barely rolled back, and the institutions and programs of New Deal and Great Society liberalism endured more or less intact.
This divide, I think, explains a lot of the mutual incomprehension surrounding size-of-government debates. To liberals and many moderates, it often seems like the right gets what it wants in these arguments and then just gets more extreme, demanding cuts atop cuts, concessions atop concessions, deregulation upon deregulation, tax cuts upon tax cuts. But to many conservatives, the right has never come remotely close to getting what it actually wants, whether in the Reagan era or the Gingrich years or now the age of the Tea Party — because what it wants is an actually smaller government, as opposed to one that just grows somewhat more slowly than liberals and the left would like. And this goal only ends up getting labeled as "extreme" in our debates, conservatives lament, because the right has never succeeded in dislodging certain basic assumptions about government established by F.D.R. and L.B.J. — under which a slower rate of spending growth is a "draconian cut," an era of "small government" is one which in which the state grows immensely in absolute terms but holds steady as a share of G.D.P., and a rich society can never get rich enough to need less welfare spending per capita than it did when it was considerably poorer.
Anyone interested in seeing this argument advanced with particular verve and force should take up William Voegeli's recent book "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State." But no matter how it's been advanced or by whom, it's never carried the day in our politics. The right has had success restraining the federal government's growth and frustrating liberal ambitions for new programs, but when it comes to the question of whether the state should meaningfully shrink its footprint in our society, American political reality really does seem to have a liberal bias. And so the process that Frum described well in the early 1990s has played out repeatedly in our politics: Conservative politicians take power imagining that this time, this time, they will finally tame the New Deal-Great Society Leviathan ... and then they make proposals and advance ideas for doing so, the weight of public opinion tilts against them, and they end up either backpedalling, getting defeated at the polls, or both.
So what you're seeing motivating the House Intransigents today, what's driving their willingness to engage in probably-pointless brinksmanship, is not just anger at a specific Democratic administration, or opposition to a specific program, or disappointment over a single electoral defeat. Rather, it's a revolt against the long term pattern I've just described: Against what these conservatives, and many on the right, see as forty years of failure, in which first Reagan and then Gingrich and now the Tea Party wave have all failed to deliver on the promise of an actual right-wing answer to the big left-wing victories of the 1930s and 1960s — and now, with Obamacare, of Obama's first two years as well.
"They didn't dare," Frum wrote of the Intransigents' Reagan-era predecessors, "and they realized that they didn't dare." Well, this time, no matter the risks and costs and polls, there are small-government conservatives who intend to dare — because only through a kind of wild daring, they believe, can the long-term, post-New Deal disadvantage that the cause of limited government labors under finally be overcome.
And if this attitude sounds more like a foolish romanticism than a prudent, responsible, grounded-in-reality conservatism — well, yes, unfortunately I think it pretty clearly is.
As I say it all seems very Old Labour - no compromise with the electorate.
Quote from: Syt on October 03, 2013, 02:54:35 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html
QuoteHouse Republicans are continuing to play hardball in negotiations over the spending bill that precipitated the government shutdown on Oct. 1, apparently out of fear that compromise would weaken their power.
"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
The GOP spent much of Wednesday blaming President Barack Obama and the Democrats for the effects of the shutdown, which led to the furlough of 800,000 workers and the closure of numerous government services. They failed to mention that the spending bill didn't pass because they loaded the bill with restrictions on the Affordable Care Act, a law that passed in 2010 and was found constitutional by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
In an effort to end the shutdown, Democrats are seeking the passage of a "clean" continuing resolution to fund the government while further negotiations on the budget take place. Most, if not all, Democrats would vote for it, and enough Republicans are publicly now on board to pass it.
At the time of this writing, however, such a vote is still being thwarted by the GOP leadership.
:lol:
That is mind-boggling :blink:
I remember, at the last potential shutdown, reading a GOP House veteran who said he thought there would eventually be a shutdown because the new members of the House need to 'get it out of their system' :lol:
Does the Hastert rule really work in the American system? It would work in Westminster because the executive and legislature are effectively fused, but it seems problematic in the US.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:21:04 AM
That is mind-boggling :blink:
That a representative from Indiana would say something foolish when asked for a quote?
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2013, 07:22:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:21:04 AM
That is mind-boggling :blink:
That a representative from Indiana would say something foolish when asked for a quote?
That any politician would frame it as being about respect and not at least have some platitude ready of what they want to achieve. The House leadership should be circulating at least some basic lines to take.
It's more grim if it's reflective of other congressmen :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:25:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2013, 07:22:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:21:04 AM
That is mind-boggling :blink:
That a representative from Indiana would say something foolish when asked for a quote?
That any politician would frame it as being about respect and not at least have some platitude ready of what they want to achieve. The House leadership should be circulating at least some basic lines to take.
It's more grim if it's reflective of other congressmen :mellow:
Perhaps you're just optimistic about congress and following the media's path of drawing to many conclusions from this one rep.
God, I wish my party had the will to power of the GOP. It is admirable, in a way, though they use their strength for evil.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:25:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2013, 07:22:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:21:04 AM
That is mind-boggling :blink:
That a representative from Indiana would say something foolish when asked for a quote?
That any politician would frame it as being about respect and not at least have some platitude ready of what they want to achieve. The House leadership should be circulating at least some basic lines to take.
It's more grim if it's reflective of other congressmen :mellow:
Yes. They are gambling with a lot of livelihoods and indirectly with the US (and because of that, world) economy. It would be reassuring to think they have at least some idea about why they are doing it for.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2013, 07:27:29 AM
Perhaps you're just optimistic about congress and following the media's path of drawing to many conclusions from this one rep.
That's the first time I've seen wanting the leadership trying to impose a single media strategy as 'optimistic' :lol:
I've read Boehner wants to try for a grand bargain again - with the debt ceiling. Because getting the CR and the debt ceiling passed are easy so we should throw in social security reform, revenues and, fuck it, let's solve Syria too :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:30:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2013, 07:27:29 AM
Perhaps you're just optimistic about congress and following the media's path of drawing to many conclusions from this one rep.
That's the first time I've seen wanting the leadership trying to impose a single media strategy as 'optimistic' :lol:
I've read Boehner wants to try for a grand bargain again - with the debt ceiling. Because getting the CR and the debt ceiling passed are easy so we should throw in social security reform, revenues and, fuck it, let's solve Syria too :blink:
Well they still have their own paychecks coming, so it`s not like pressure is mounting.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2013, 07:30:14 AM
That's the first time I've seen wanting the leadership trying to impose a single media strategy as 'optimistic' :lol:
That's not what I meant but rather that everyone in congress is a) competent and b) has the ability to stay on script. The inability of one rep to coherently respond doesn't mean that there are no talking points. I'm pretty sure the McCain campaign put together talking points for Palin. :P
Yeah, most of these people are independently wealthy.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2013, 07:37:27 AM
That's not what I meant but rather that everyone in congress is a) competent and b) has the ability to stay on script. The inability of one rep to coherently respond doesn't mean that there are no talking points. I'm pretty sure the McCain campaign put together talking points for Palin. :P
The House has gone rogue! :o
Fair point. So the House leadership should try and set up lots of important meetings to get the input of these members and keep them far, far away from the cameras.
Does Boehner even have an option to end this on his own? Sure, he can bring this to a vote and rely mostly on Democrats, but can't the Tea Party nutcases just depose him as a speaker and get one of their own in charge for the next act of hostage taking? What then? Have the less nutty Republicans all defect to Democrats as a group so that the speaker position is out of the hands of Tea Party?
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
Does Boehner even have an option to end this on his own? Sure, he can bring this to a vote and rely mostly on Democrats, but can't the Tea Party nutcases just depose him as a speaker and get one of their own in charge for the next act of hostage taking? What then? Have the less nutty Republicans all defect to Democrats as a group so that the speaker position is out of the hands of Tea Party?
The mind of a slav is a scary, disorganized place.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
Does Boehner even have an option to end this on his own? Sure, he can bring this to a vote and rely mostly on Democrats, but can't the Tea Party nutcases just depose him as a speaker and get one of their own in charge for the next act of hostage taking? What then? Have the less nutty Republicans all defect to Democrats as a group so that the speaker position is out of the hands of Tea Party?
The problem for Boehner - and why I sympathise with him - is he's constantly undermined by others who want to be Speaker. But each one of them knows that, right now, it'd be a poisoned chalice. So he's left there having to deal with the situation and with his authority draining away.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
Does Boehner even have an option to end this on his own? Sure, he can bring this to a vote and rely mostly on Democrats, but can't the Tea Party nutcases just depose him as a speaker and get one of their own in charge for the next act of hostage taking? What then? Have the less nutty Republicans all defect to Democrats as a group so that the speaker position is out of the hands of Tea Party?
The House Tea party Caucus has something like 49 members. They couldn't overthrow Boehner.
Heard an interview with a Republican congressman from Indiana. He called Obamacare "the most insidious law ever created by man." I wish the Republicans would heed Kirk Lazarus:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.troll.me%2Fimages%2Ffull-retard%2Fyou-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg&hash=8f33104395e56bbbdd88e5887e6265fae3e35678)
Quote from: grumbler on October 03, 2013, 08:02:56 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
Does Boehner even have an option to end this on his own? Sure, he can bring this to a vote and rely mostly on Democrats, but can't the Tea Party nutcases just depose him as a speaker and get one of their own in charge for the next act of hostage taking? What then? Have the less nutty Republicans all defect to Democrats as a group so that the speaker position is out of the hands of Tea Party?
The House Tea party Caucus has something like 49 members. They couldn't overthrow Boehner.
Ok, not literally the Tea Party Caucus, but rather the caucus of all those Republicans that are currently opposing the bill. I imagine that if they have the numbers to invoke the Hastert Rule, they also have the numbers to invoke the "GTFO, speaker" rule.
I do not think so. If they had that power they would have exercised it already. There maybe be more extremist republicans then are just in the Caucus they still aren't enough. We essentially have three parties in the house.
Quote from: Kleves on October 03, 2013, 08:37:14 AM
Heard an interview with a Republican congressman from Indiana. He called Obamacare "the most insidious law ever created by man." I wish the Republicans would heed Kirk Lazarus:
I am not sure I can take the realization that there could another Congressman as stupid as Louie Gohmert.
He learned that at the crik.
I don't approve of the Repubs taking the hard stance on Obamacare (ACA), it was never going to be repealed. But yesterday, didn't the Dems refuse any negotiations on the continuing resolution bill, including an amendment that would require Congress to use the ACA and not get any special treatment? Both sides are playing hardball, just the Repubs started off in a worse position, IMO.
The Obamacare exemption/non-exemption was people playing politics (like selectively trying to fund certain things), see here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359742/obamacare-non-exemption-patrick-brennan
It is also worth pointing out that this CR has a lower amount of discretionary spending than the Ryan budget - it's low.
Quote from: KRonn on October 03, 2013, 09:20:26 AM
I don't approve of the Repubs taking the hard stance on Obamacare (ACA), it was never going to be repealed. But yesterday, didn't the Dems refuse any negotiations on the continuing resolution bill, including an amendment that would require Congress to use the ACA and not get any special treatment? Both sides are playing hardball, just the Repubs started off in a worse position, IMO.
KRonn, do you ever make any judgment calls, are there any situations where both sides are not at fault?
Jon Stewart delivers another mot juste:
"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can made a deal with the most intransigent, hardline, unreasonable, totalitarian Mullahs in the world, but not with Republicans, maybe he's not the problem."
I can made stool. :)
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2013, 08:52:36 AM
Ok, not literally the Tea Party Caucus, but rather the caucus of all those Republicans that are currently opposing the bill. I imagine that if they have the numbers to invoke the Hastert Rule, they also have the numbers to invoke the "GTFO, speaker" rule.
Boehner hasn't invoked the Hastert Rule, as far as I know. If you have info to the contrary, I'd be glad to see it, though.
At least one staunch Republican Obamacare sceptic has come around to the ACA: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/02/2721501/butch-matthews-obamacare-convert/
QuoteSo what would Matthews tell other Americans who are skeptical about Obamacare? "I would tell them to learn more about it before they start talking bad about it," he noted. "Be more informed, get more information, take your time and study and not just go by just what you hear on one side or the other. Actually check the facts on it."
"I still am a very strong Republican, but this... I'm so happy that this came along," he continued.
That's significant.
Wonder if his next of kin has been notified of an upcoming windfall yet.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2013, 11:17:06 AM
That's significant.
I know - the notion of actually looking at the numbers and figuring out how it will impact regular people and yourself rather than to just swallow the Cruz-Fox line must seem quite revolutionary to staunch Republicans who are more used to hearing it described as "the most insidious law known to man."
Report: California Obamacare totals inflated
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/california-obamacare-97770.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/california-obamacare-97770.html)
Quote
California's health insurance exchange reported — wrongly — that it had received 5 million hits on its website the first day of Obamacare. State officials said the real number was only about a tenth of that, or 645,000, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
Half a million makes way more sense than 5 million on the first day for California, IMO.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:26:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2013, 11:17:06 AM
That's significant.
I know - the notion of actually looking at the numbers and figuring out how it will impact regular people and yourself rather than to just swallow the Cruz-Fox line must seem quite revolutionary to staunch Republicans who are more used to hearing it described as "the most insidious law known to man."
It's just one dude. But if you want to count that as a huge victory, go ahead.
I love that one side is responsible for shutting the thing down, then the other side is the bad guys because they won't let the ones who caused the shutdown to try and restart it on their own terms.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2013, 12:51:46 PMIt's just one dude. But if you want to count that as a huge victory, go ahead.
I'm not counting it as a huge victory, just as a single data point :)
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2013, 01:32:49 PM
I love that one side is responsible for shutting the thing down, then the other side is the bad guys because they won't let the ones who caused the shutdown to try and restart it on their own terms.
I think this is a case of sympathies dictating conclusion.
The GOP has offered a CR on funding Interior and Veterans (and maybe NIH). If closing those departments is a terrible thing, opening them is presumably a nice thing.
The reason Democrats refuse to sign off is because they need the House to authorize funds for Obamacare. The only way they will get that is if not funding Obamacare has other negative repercussions, such as a government shut down.
The GOP did the Democrats a gigantic favor by linking Obamacare to the rest of government spending in the first place.
So they can offer bills to fund the parts of government they like (our at least don't hate) and ignore those they don't. Why should they have that power?
The constitution :mellow:
Is it starting? http://news.yahoo.com/possible-shots-u-capitol-puts-senators-lockdown-183943370.html
I meant why should the democrats give the that power.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2013, 01:56:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 01:50:25 PM
Apparently not.
??
I just mean that their recent attempt hasn't really gotten them far, and has instead resulted in a great deal of angst for hundreds of thousands of people instead. It may be Constitutional, but it's not getting them very far.
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2013, 01:50:30 PM
I meant why should the democrats give the that power.
They're not.
But there are many people saying the dems are the bad guys, or obstructionists, for not letting them. That is what I was commenting on.
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2013, 02:10:59 PM
But there are many people saying the dems are the bad guys, or obstructionists, for not letting them. That is what I was commenting on.
They say that because they have no other choice.
Not like they were accomplishing anything anyway. :P
QuoteLive: Gunshots near Capitol temporarily locks down Congress
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/03/politics/capitol-shots-fired-developments/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
:blink:
QuoteRandy Neugebauer slams memorial ranger
By LUCY MCCALMONT | 10/3/13 12:57 PM EDT
With tensions growing over the shutdown, a Texas lawmaker confronted a park ranger outside the National World War II Memorial, saying National Park Service "should be ashamed" for putting up barricades, preventing veterans from entering.
"How do you look at at them and say— how do you deny them access? I don't get that," Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) asked the ranger, in footage filmed by NBC Washington on Wednesday.
"Well, it should be difficult," Neugebauer said.
"It is difficult, I'm sorry sir," the ranger said.
Neugebauer was part of a large group of lawmakers and civilians that gathered at the memorial on Wednesday after reports Tuesday that the site had been barricaded as a result of the shutdown. As he continued to address the ranger, he pushed further, attacking NPS, which oversees access to the memorial sites.
"Park Service should be ashamed of themselves."
"I'm not ashamed," the ranger replied.
"Well, you should be," the lawmaker said before walking away and being confronted by a bystander in the area.
The bystander at the site said he, too, was a federal employee who was out of work, and the park ranger was "doing her job." Neugebauer put blame on Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for the unemployment.
"Well, the reason you are is because Mr. Reid decided to shut down the government," Neugebauer told the man.
"No, it's because the government won't do its job and pass a budget," the bicyclist responded.
Seems like the Republicans have a plan for countering any potential backlash at the polls from the shutdown. Remove campaign contributions completely: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html
It seems like Obamacare is popular with at least some people:
QuoteFor Xerox's (XRX) Kevin Walsh, "10/1," as he calls this past Tuesday, was years in the making. Walsh is the managing director of a division of Xerox that's working with states on the insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, and Oct. 1 was the day all of them went live. I checked in with him to see how the first few days of the exchange went in Nevada, where the company both runs the technology that underpins the website and operates the call centers that field queries from the public.
When the exchange opened—17 minutes later than the 8 a.m. scheduled start time—the website and call centers were flooded with inquiries. Walsh said that in the first few hours"it was just raw emotion calling in." People eager for insurance, at times in tears, wanted to get coverage that they didn't have before. "They were calling up saying, 'Can I get my coverage today so I can see my doctor this afternoon?'" he says. "That is in one sense moving but also frustrating because, sure, you can sign up—but the coverage can't be effective until Jan. 1."
Walsh says his team has been working around the clock, so much so that on Wednesday he sent one of his development managers home to take a nap. "He didn't want to quit, but his brain wasn't working anymore," Walsh says.
The rest of the article here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-03/people-are-calling-this-obamacare-insurance-exchange-in-tears#r=recent
Is this true? :
Quote
Al Jazeera's Kimberley Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said that the officers who responded to the White House security scare were not being paid because of a government shutdown.
She said that the shutdown might have reduced the security presence around Capitol Hill.
I assume so. DC city government shuts down when feds shut down.
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2013, 07:12:35 PM
Is this true? :
Quote
Al Jazeera's Kimberley Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said that the officers who responded to the White House security scare were not being paid because of a government shutdown.
She said that the shutdown might have reduced the security presence around Capitol Hill.
Technically they are being paid. They may just not get it when they normally would.
and to the last line. No, they're exempted most likely.
Anywho the running joke is we (exempted) would be paid, but they furloughed they pay people :lol: . So, we end up getting the short end of the stick.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
Seems like the Republicans have a plan for countering any potential backlash at the polls from the shutdown. Remove campaign contributions completely: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html
Campaign contribution
limits.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 07:35:20 PM
Anywho the running joke is we (exempted) would be paid, but they furloughed they pay people :lol: . So, we end up getting the short end of the stick.
:D
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 03, 2013, 01:49:59 PM
Is it starting? http://news.yahoo.com/possible-shots-u-capitol-puts-senators-lockdown-183943370.html
Seriously, shouldn't those security personnel have been sent home due to the shut down?
Quote from: Viking on October 03, 2013, 07:40:35 PM
Seriously, shouldn't those security personnel have been sent home due to the shut down?
Of course not.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2013, 07:38:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
Seems like the Republicans have a plan for countering any potential backlash at the polls from the shutdown. Remove campaign contributions completely: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html
Campaign contribution limits.
Big difference that. But, you, 'murricans. If you want more sensible politics, only permit donations to the political parties themselves.
And, seriously, you people should be embarrassed. You fuckin' call yourselves a first world nation? Even Taiwan can pass a budget between fist fights in that parliament. You can't blame this all on the teabaggers, they aren't the majority, they aren't even the majority of the majority. You have elected pathetic spineless losers to congress. You did this. You seriously need to apologize to the rest of the human race for making us look bad. This is the second time this has happened. FFS did you nitwits learn nothing from the last time? The only other western country to fuck it up this bad was Belgium when they managed to go for two years without a government, but they managed to pass budgets in that time.
Quote from: Viking on October 03, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
And, seriously, you people should be embarrassed. You fuckin' call yourselves a first world nation?
I dare you to find where I've said that since 2008.
Quote from: Viking on October 03, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
You can't blame this all on the teabaggers, they aren't the majority, they aren't even the majority of the majority.
Their fellow travelers make for a majority.
Quote from: Viking on October 03, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
And, seriously, you people should be embarrassed. You fuckin' call yourselves a first world nation? Even Taiwan can pass a budget between fist fights in that parliament. You can't blame this all on the teabaggers, they aren't the majority, they aren't even the majority of the majority. You have elected pathetic spineless losers to congress. You did this. You seriously need to apologize to the rest of the human race for making us look bad. This is the second time this has happened. FFS did you nitwits learn nothing from the last time? The only other western country to fuck it up this bad was Belgium when they managed to go for two years without a government, but they managed to pass budgets in that time.
We are not first world, we are the world, you insolent snob.
oh, and FUCK YOU
USA USA USA USA USA :blurgh:
Quote from: Viking on October 03, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
This is the second time this has happened.
Actually it's the 17th time this has happened.
They will crumble under the weight of their own contradictions...
A pity, since America is needed!
If I was Obama I'd round up that unruly Congress and force them - at gun point - to vote a budget *with* tax raises. Is he not the first magistrate of the Republic? Is he not Commander in Chief? Is it not his mandate to protect and safeguard the Republic against all threats? Including those from within? And I will be damned if those Tea Party fanatics aren't a threat to America.
G.
I am quite concerned over how foreigners view my country.
:lmfao:
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2013, 09:09:58 PM
I am quite concerned over how foreigners view my country.
:lmfao:
They're third world and cant understand the problems.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 09:21:12 PM
They're third world and cant understand the problems.
It seems the state of denial is even more profound than usual. *shakes head*
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2013, 09:29:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 09:21:12 PM
They're third world and cant understand the problems.
It seems the state of denial is even more profound than usual. *shakes head*
G.
USA
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2013, 07:38:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
Seems like the Republicans have a plan for countering any potential backlash at the polls from the shutdown. Remove campaign contributions completely: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html
Campaign contribution limits.
Heh. Yeah. That's a pretty crucial typo on my part :blush:
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 09:34:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2013, 07:38:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
Seems like the Republicans have a plan for countering any potential backlash at the polls from the shutdown. Remove campaign contributions completely: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html
Campaign contribution limits.
Heh. Yeah. That's a pretty crucial typo on my part :blush:
I did have to look at the article. I was thinking it didn't sound right, given that Mitch McConnell is probably the most corrupt Senator in recent history.
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
Liberal drivel.
QuoteKKK Rally At Gettysburg Canceled Because Of Government Shutdown
:lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 10:50:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
Liberal drivel.
:unsure:
There's a video of this Republican saying this. Want I should link it?
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 10:50:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
Liberal drivel.
:unsure:
There's a video of this Republican saying this. Want I should link it?
Feel free.
Top of this article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html
An attempt to deflect responsibility for the Obama/Reid government shutdown onto the GOP.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 10:59:54 PM
An attempt to deflect responsibility for the Obama/Reid government shutdown onto the GOP.
So, how much have you had to drink tonight? :)
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 10:59:54 PM
An attempt to deflect responsibility for the Obama/Reid government shutdown onto the GOP.
:lmfao:
You weren't kidding when you said you were never serious on languish.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 11:08:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 10:59:54 PM
An attempt to deflect responsibility for the Obama/Reid government shutdown onto the GOP.
So, how much have you had to drink tonight? :)
He's either chronically stupid or trollling, there is no cure for either.
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2013, 11:09:23 PMHe's either chronically stupid or trollling, there is no cure for either.
But he does illustrate a good point about GOP tactics - basically whenever they do anything shitty, they brazenly accuse others of doing to deflect any responsibility for their own actions.
Quote from: Viking on October 03, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
And, seriously, you people should be embarrassed.
Eh I am used to it by now.
More liberal propaganda:
US Congressman (still getting paid) yells at Park Ranger (not getting paid), because the WWII memorial is shut down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY)
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2013, 09:09:58 PM
I am quite concerned over how foreigners view my country.
:lmfao:
Well you are. But only when it's when they disprove of Obama.
Well it is not like that is hard to find. Obama is suprisingly shitty at foreign affairs. But it is not like we have not had a government shut down before when we had a Democratic President in office. The Republicans love to manufacture crisis that endanger the entire international economy just to score cheap political points. The Democrats are merely corrupt and incompetent.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2013, 11:36:22 PM
Well you are. But only when it's when they disprove of Obama.
I dunno... if there's one thing that could cause Spicy to back up Obama it would be a whole bunch of foreigners being mad at him. Americans are ornery like that sometimes, and I get the impression that Spicy likes it when foreigners are upset.
... or maybe that's Ed?
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2013, 11:36:22 PM
Well you are. But only when it's when they disprove of Obama.
I dunno... if there's one thing that could cause Spicy to back up Obama it would be a whole bunch of foreigners being mad at him. Americans are ornery like that sometimes, and I get the impression that Spicy likes it when foreigners are upset.
... or maybe that's Ed?
The only thing that could make Spicy back up Barack Obama is if Michelle Obama was against him.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2013, 11:49:58 PM
The only thing that could make Spicy back up Barack Obama is if Michelle Obama was against him.
You sure about that, I think he's got a bit of a crush on her. :P
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 11:08:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 10:59:54 PM
An attempt to deflect responsibility for the Obama/Reid government shutdown onto the GOP.
So, how much have you had to drink tonight? :)
I dont drink and yes I'm pulling your chain. Speaker Boinker would have caved 30 September, if it wasnt for the teabaggers. The lions share of this shutdown goes to the teabaggers and defacto to GOP. That is fact. The moderates of the GOP need to get their voice.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:09:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2013, 10:59:54 PM
An attempt to deflect responsibility for the Obama/Reid government shutdown onto the GOP.
:lmfao:
You weren't kidding when you said you were never serious on languish.
Thats waht u colege edjumacated pipple r hear for.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
And this is why your notions of "voting for the person" are flawed. The GOP is a monolithic block of wrongness and insanity. Sure, some of them are more articulate than this one, but they operate in tandem, and for the past few years and for the immediate future the Stutzmans have been in charge.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 01:03:33 AM
I dont drink and yes I'm pulling your chain. Speaker Boinker would have caved 30 September, if it wasnt for the teabaggers. The lions share of this shutdown goes to the teabaggers and defacto to GOP. That is fact. The moderates of the GOP need to get their voice.
You weren't kidding when you said that you haven't made a serious post on Languish since 2003. This one is a howler.
Talking with some friends of mine who work for the government, I discover, to my amusement, that the "essential" employees are actually pleased and flattered that they are 'essential" and so have to continue to work, even though they can't get paid until the shutdown is over. They consider themselves superior to the "non-esential" employees who are sent home and also won't get paid until the shutdown is over.
The fact of the matter is that the bureaucracy is using the tag of "essential" to deny a vacation to those workers they don't want to do without. Some of the "essential" workers probably are essential, but a lot of them (like Congressmen and Senators) are not.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2013, 01:45:20 PM
The constitution :mellow:
The GOP has zero cred when trying to use the "Constitution" to justify their actions.
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 06:19:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 01:03:33 AM
I dont drink and yes I'm pulling your chain. Speaker Boinker would have caved 30 September, if it wasnt for the teabaggers. The lions share of this shutdown goes to the teabaggers and defacto to GOP. That is fact. The moderates of the GOP need to get their voice.
You weren't kidding when you said that you haven't made a serious post on Languish since 2003. This one is a howler.
I'm not sure how your stated opinion is different from that above statement by 11B4V. :unsure: Is it that you assign most of the blame to the Speaker for caving into the teabaggers, rather than assigning it to the teabaggers themselves?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 05:00:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
And this is why your notions of "voting for the person" are flawed. The GOP is a monolithic block of wrongness and insanity. Sure, some of them are more articulate than this one, but they operate in tandem, and for the past few years and for the immediate future the Stutzmans have been in charge.
:yawn:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 04, 2013, 07:03:43 AM
I'm not sure how your stated opinion is different from that above statement by 11B4V. :unsure: Is it that you assign most of the blame to the Speaker for caving into the teabaggers, rather than assigning it to the teabaggers themselves?
It is possible that I wasn't being completely serious. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2013, 07:14:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 05:00:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
And this is why your notions of "voting for the person" are flawed. The GOP is a monolithic block of wrongness and insanity. Sure, some of them are more articulate than this one, but they operate in tandem, and for the past few years and for the immediate future the Stutzmans have been in charge.
:yawn:
A yuppie Gen Y Manhattanite is unpatriotic and will jump at the chance to align with people who would put him in two different kinds of camps, if given half the opportunity, all over the prospect of slightly lower taxes? Now
that's boring.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:23:41 PM
More liberal propaganda:
US Congressman (still getting paid) yells at Park Ranger (not getting paid), because the WWII memorial is shut down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY)
Yeah. Brave man while the cameras are giving him a free sound byte.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 04, 2013, 07:45:12 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:23:41 PM
More liberal propaganda:
US Congressman (still getting paid) yells at Park Ranger (not getting paid), because the WWII memorial is shut down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY)
Yeah. Brave Stupid man while the cameras are giving him a free sound byte.
This can't play well to anyone. If it does, we're doomed and should probably throw in the towel now.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:23:41 PM
More liberal propaganda:
US Congressman (still getting paid) yells at Park Ranger (not getting paid), because the WWII memorial is shut down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY)
I already posted about that in this thread. :sleep:
Anyway, she was a lot more polite than I would have been. I think I would have said something along the lines of "Fuck you and get back to work, asshole."
....
Ok, I wouldn't have actually said that. :blush: But I would have been thinking it. :)
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 06:31:02 AM
Talking with some friends of mine who work for the government, I discover, to my amusement, that the "essential" employees are actually pleased and flattered that they are 'essential" and so have to continue to work, even though they can't get paid until the shutdown is over. They consider themselves superior to the "non-esential" employees who are sent home and also won't get paid until the shutdown is over.
The fact of the matter is that the bureaucracy is using the tag of "essential" to deny a vacation to those workers they don't want to do without. Some of the "essential" workers probably are essential, but a lot of them (like Congressmen and Senators) are not.
Yes, they all may or may not get paid, and who knows when, but in short: the non essential personnel are getting a paid vacation to play computer games while the essential personnel are at work. Makes perfect sense to me.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 04, 2013, 08:17:58 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 06:31:02 AM
Talking with some friends of mine who work for the government, I discover, to my amusement, that the "essential" employees are actually pleased and flattered that they are 'essential" and so have to continue to work, even though they can't get paid until the shutdown is over. They consider themselves superior to the "non-esential" employees who are sent home and also won't get paid until the shutdown is over.
The fact of the matter is that the bureaucracy is using the tag of "essential" to deny a vacation to those workers they don't want to do without. Some of the "essential" workers probably are essential, but a lot of them (like Congressmen and Senators) are not.
Yes, they all may or may not get paid, and who knows when, but in short: the non essential personnel are getting a paid vacation to play computer games while the essential personnel are at work. Makes perfect sense to me.
Oh, I love government :)
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2013, 11:36:22 PM
Well you are. But only when it's when they disprove of Obama.
I dunno... if there's one thing that could cause Spicy to back up Obama it would be a whole bunch of foreigners being mad at him. Americans are ornery like that sometimes, and I get the impression that Spicy likes it when foreigners are upset.
... or maybe that's Ed?
Me. I love it.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2013, 11:36:22 PM
Well you are. But only when it's when they disprove of Obama.
I dunno... if there's one thing that could cause Spicy to back up Obama it would be a whole bunch of foreigners being mad at him. Americans are ornery like that sometimes, and I get the impression that Spicy likes it when foreigners are upset.
... or maybe that's Ed?
Well, I do piss off a foreigner at least once a day.
But yeah, I do get a kick out of self-righteous foreigners being upset with us.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 09:00:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2013, 11:36:22 PM
Well you are. But only when it's when they disprove of Obama.
I dunno... if there's one thing that could cause Spicy to back up Obama it would be a whole bunch of foreigners being mad at him. Americans are ornery like that sometimes, and I get the impression that Spicy likes it when foreigners are upset.
... or maybe that's Ed?
Well, I do piss off a foreigner at least once a day.
But yeah, I do get a kick out of self-righteous foreigners being upset with us.
The more paragraphs of frothing, the better.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 09:00:49 AM
But yeah, I do get a kick out of self-righteous foreigners being upset with us.
Who the hell doesn't?
"Hey, he can't treat our pledges like that."
"Only we can treat our pledges like that."
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 06:19:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 01:03:33 AM
I dont drink and yes I'm pulling your chain. Speaker Boinker would have caved 30 September, if it wasnt for the teabaggers. The lions share of this shutdown goes to the teabaggers and defacto to GOP. That is fact. The moderates of the GOP need to get their voice.
You weren't kidding when you said that you haven't made a serious post on Languish since 2003. This one is a howler.
:yucky:
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 07:54:58 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 04, 2013, 07:45:12 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:23:41 PM
More liberal propaganda:
US Congressman (still getting paid) yells at Park Ranger (not getting paid), because the WWII memorial is shut down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-123whqIRjY)
Yeah. Brave Stupid man while the cameras are giving him a free sound byte.
This can't play well to anyone. If it does, we're doomed and should probably throw in the towel now.
If the GOP goes through this without losing some serious face, your politics are really fucked up.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
If the GOP goes through this without losing some serious face, your politics are really fucked up.
So would you say that's something that would bother you Euro-types? :)
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
If the GOP goes through this without losing some serious face, your politics are really fucked up.
Well we only have two parties. They know they only have to be better than the other guys.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 10:18:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
If the GOP goes through this without losing some serious face, your politics are really fucked up.
So would you say that's something that would bother you Euro-types? :)
Oh yes. The state not handing money out is basically the only thing Hungarians care about, politically.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 10:18:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
If the GOP goes through this without losing some serious face, your politics are really fucked up.
So would you say that's something that would bother you Euro-types? :)
I don't think that "bother" is really the right word for non-American reactions to the current crisis.
More like 'OMG, they can't
really be that stupid ... can they?" with a side-order of concern that the stupidity in question may fuck up the world economy.
That works as well.
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2013, 10:27:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 10:18:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
If the GOP goes through this without losing some serious face, your politics are really fucked up.
So would you say that's something that would bother you Euro-types? :)
I don't think that "bother" is really the right word for non-American reactions to the current crisis.
More like 'OMG, they can't really be that stupid ... can they?" with a side-order of concern that the stupidity in question may fuck up the world economy.
pretty much.
And frankly it should raise concerns about the respect Republicans have for the democracy in the States. The law they want go get cancelled has gone through all possible legal hurdles and has been voted in. Going apeshit "REVOKE IT ANYWAY!!!!" is stupid and dangerous.
And lastly, if the "Republican moderates" fail to show their force now, they simply do not exist.
The congress, acccording to the Daily show atleast, has a 90% incumbent rate. There will be no fallout for any of this.
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
Tamas was a lot less uppity when he had the Romanian loon to tard out with.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
What is odd is that the Republicans seem to be cool with it.
Or maybe it is like that old political quip:
"Candidate, you have the vote of every thinking American!"
"That's great, but I need a majority to win"
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
Don't kiss up to him :angry:
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2013, 10:44:34 AM
What is odd is that the Republicans seem to be cool with it.
Or maybe it is like that old political quip:
"Candidate, you have the vote of every thinking American!"
"That's great, but I need a majority to win"
Not all of them. Even some of the staunch Republicans at the office are questioning their party.
Not that it matters in this state, but I think that there will be more than a few who either decide not to vote next election, or vote for another party.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
Don't kiss up to him :angry:
Am I wrong? Or are you too busy playing up your Languish persona today to give a reasoned response?
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 04, 2013, 08:17:58 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 06:31:02 AM
Talking with some friends of mine who work for the government, I discover, to my amusement, that the "essential" employees are actually pleased and flattered that they are 'essential" and so have to continue to work, even though they can't get paid until the shutdown is over. They consider themselves superior to the "non-esential" employees who are sent home and also won't get paid until the shutdown is over.
The fact of the matter is that the bureaucracy is using the tag of "essential" to deny a vacation to those workers they don't want to do without. Some of the "essential" workers probably are essential, but a lot of them (like Congressmen and Senators) are not.
Yes, they all may or may not get paid, and who knows when, but in short: the non essential personnel are getting a paid vacation to play computer games while the essential personnel are at work. Makes perfect sense to me.
Hit the nail on the head.
Talked with 60 or so DLA warehouse workers yesterday that were none to happy. Why? They were not feeling superior, they were pissed for mainly two reasons.
1. the fuckers who will most likely get paid for sitting at home
2. those fuckers sitting at home are the ones who cut the paperwork that allows the workers to load and direct supply's.
Also ran into a group of rad workers who were pissed for the same reasons. They couldn't get dosimetry because the people who issue it were sent home as non-essential.
Want more direct examples?
You got some fucked up friends Grumbler.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:47:15 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
Don't kiss up to him :angry:
Am I wrong? Or are you too busy playing up your Languish persona today to give a reasoned response?
I don't care if you're right or wrong. Just don't do that.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
2. those fuckers sitting at home are the ones who cut the paperwork that allows the workers to load and direct supply's.
LOL so what are they actually doing?
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
2. those fuckers sitting at home are the ones who cut the paperwork that allows the workers to load and direct supply's.
LOL so what are they actually doing?
Not sitting at home getting paid.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 10:18:20 AMSo would you say that's something that would bother you Euro-types? :)
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
Tamas was a lot less uppity when he had the Romanian loon to tard out with.
One of these days I will copy the hardcore Democrat soldier stand of DGuller just so I can see you turn into a Tea Party fanatic just to be contrarian to me.
Ahole.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
2. those fuckers sitting at home are the ones who cut the paperwork that allows the workers to load and direct supply's.
LOL so what are they actually doing?
I'll give another,
Certification for this pay period happens today. A knob payroll exec sent out an email on the 2nd stating do nothing with pay and certify nothing. On 3 October DFAS sent out an email stating to certify all pay in SLCADA as you normally would. Problem is the knob exec and the payroll people are sitting at home. They never inputted the new job order numbers to pay people for FY14 like they were suppose to
prior to the fiscal year ending. Welcome to government service. This is your government people.
It's a comedy show. I'll post more as they come up.
Yeap. Interesting times we live in, interesting times.
Reid apologized this morning on the Senate floor for the nasty tone on the part of him and his colleagues :)
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 04, 2013, 11:21:29 AM
Yeap. Interesting times we live in, interesting times.
:D The Class Six store is open.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Reid apologized this morning on the Senate floor for the nasty tone on the part of him and his colleagues :)
Good. I'm actually very happy to hear this.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 11:29:23 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Reid apologized this morning on the Senate floor for the nasty tone on the part of him and his colleagues :)
Good. I'm actually very happy to hear this.
Apparently Reid violated Senate rules by calling out Ted Cruz by name and by impugning his motives or conduct.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 11:34:04 AM
Apparently Reid violated Senate rules by calling out Ted Cruz by name and by impugning his motives or conduct.
SHIT JUST GOT REAL
Cruz is a piece of shit, so I'm ok with that. :)
Quote from: Caliga on October 04, 2013, 11:38:51 AM
Cruz is a piece of shit, so I'm ok with that. :)
Same here. I dont like Reid, but i like Cruz even less.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 11:10:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
Tamas was a lot less uppity when he had the Romanian loon to tard out with.
One of these days I will copy the hardcore Democrat soldier stand of DGuller just so I can see you turn into a Tea Party fanatic just to be contrarian to me.
Ahole.
It's worth a try.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 11:10:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
Tamas was a lot less uppity when he had the Romanian loon to tard out with.
One of these days I will copy the hardcore Democrat soldier stand of DGuller just so I can see you turn into a Tea Party fanatic just to be contrarian to me.
Ahole.
It's worth a try.
:D Who is the "Romanian Loon"?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 05:00:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
The quote of the week:
Quote"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
And this is why your notions of "voting for the person" are flawed. The GOP is a monolithic block of wrongness and insanity. Sure, some of them are more articulate than this one, but they operate in tandem, and for the past few years and for the immediate future the Stutzmans have been in charge.
Exactly. Voting for the person only makes sense if the person acts like a person, and not as a pack member.
We need a thread dedicated just to stupid stuff politicians say.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 11:46:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 11:10:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
Tamas was a lot less uppity when he had the Romanian loon to tard out with.
One of these days I will copy the hardcore Democrat soldier stand of DGuller just so I can see you turn into a Tea Party fanatic just to be contrarian to me.
Ahole.
It's worth a try.
:D Who is the "Romanian Loon"?
He must mean Alexandru H. and this is why his "funny" fails so much because I maybe had two or three discussions with the guy, and just one of those was actual east euro shit-flinging
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 11:10:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
Tamas was a lot less uppity when he had the Romanian loon to tard out with.
One of these days I will copy the hardcore Democrat soldier stand of DGuller just so I can see you turn into a Tea Party fanatic just to be contrarian to me.
Ahole.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 11:54:05 AM
We need a thread dedicated just to stupid stuff politicians say.
It would be bigger than the OT forum combined.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 11:54:05 AM
We need a thread dedicated just to stupid stuff politicians say.
It would be bigger than the OT forum combined.
And a better read. :P
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2013, 11:56:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 11:10:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
Tamas was a lot less uppity when he had the Romanian loon to tard out with.
One of these days I will copy the hardcore Democrat soldier stand of DGuller just so I can see you turn into a Tea Party fanatic just to be contrarian to me.
Ahole.
:rolleyes:
will need you to forward me the weekly memos or whatever else you are working according to.
:P
Don't you have some beets to harvest?
Senate blocked voting today on bills to fund parks, veterans, and NIH.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:04:21 PM
Senate blocked voting today on bills to fund parks, veterans, and NIH.
:huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2F170ff9e172883fe6b2e01646aad8f48e%2Ftumblr_mrdyu9n4cS1sx4jfio1_400.gif&hash=4b17d9985c8baca3480aad48af622e333ab3cdbe)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:04:21 PM
Senate blocked voting today on bills to fund parks, veterans, and NIH.
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:04:21 PM
Senate blocked voting today on bills to fund parks, veterans, and NIH.
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
:secret: you're supposed to use the term "clean CR"
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2013, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:04:21 PM
Senate blocked voting today on bills to fund parks, veterans, and NIH.
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
:secret: you're supposed to use the term "clean CR"
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm guessing I should be okay with that.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
http://thebirddog.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/a-brief-history-of-navy-football-and-government-shutdowns/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
Rosa or regular?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
So is the idea then that the Republican house shuts down the government by refusing to fund Obamacare, then they reasonably fix it by agreeing to piecemeal fund everything BUT Obamacare?
Isn't that just giving in to their demand that the Senate pass their budget bill that includes defunding Obamacare?
Can't you make that same argument about every single part of the budget not in dispute?
That leaves us with the de facto result that the people who DON'T want some particular item funded always win, as long as they have enough to put a stop to an inclusive budget.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
The logic is that by pleasing Republicans, you are giving in to their demands. "We don't negotiate with terrorists", shouldn't that apply to the Tea Party too? They want to hold the government hostage over the budget by shutting all funding. Ok, they can do so. Now, they want to compromise, so as not to look like the total fools they are. But why should the government agree to their demands, what does Obama and the Democrats gain by pleasing the Tea Party?
I tend to agree with the Democrats position, it's everything or nothing.
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
The logic is that by pleasing Republicans, you are giving in to their demands. "We don't negotiate with terrorists", shouldn't that apply to the Tea Party too? They want to hold the government hostage over the budget by shutting all funding. Ok, they can do so. Now, they want to compromise, so as not to look like the total fools they are. But why should the government agree to their demands, what does Obama and the Democrats gain by pleasing the Tea Party?
I tend to agree with the Democrats position, it's everything or nothing.
I don't think it is a matter of everything or nothing, it is a matter of saying that funding things that are agreed upon while not funding the rest is tantamount to simply passing the House bill that defunds Oabmacare to begin with.
It seems there are plenty of people who agree with Rasputin, though - government, who needs it; Obama is being stubborn and unreasonable: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24394644
Quote from: Berkut on October 04, 2013, 12:25:25 PM
So is the idea then that the Republican house shuts down the government by refusing to fund Obamacare, then they reasonably fix it by agreeing to piecemeal fund everything BUT Obamacare?
This doesn't reasonably follow from what I wrote.
QuoteIsn't that just giving in to their demand that the Senate pass their budget bill that includes defunding Obamacare?
Can't you make that same argument about every single part of the budget not in dispute?
That leaves us with the de facto result that the people who DON'T want some particular item funded always win, as long as they have enough to put a stop to an inclusive budget.
Short answer: yes.
I think that's the stark reality of the US budgeting process. You have to get both houses and the president to sign off. In the past we've generally managed to muddle through by throwing the opposition some cookies in exchange for a thumbsup. Tip O'Neil and Ted Kennedy got the Big Dig so Reagan could have his shiny killing toys. Bush II larded up the transportation bill with pork to buy enough Democratic votes for his tax cuts. The difference this time around seems to be that members of the House are not amenable to being bought.
As I've said before, that looks very much like a flaw in the system, and I would be in favor of a rule that in the event of a failure to agree to a budget, the previous budget remains in effect.
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
The logic is that by pleasing Republicans, you are giving in to their demands. "We don't negotiate with terrorists", shouldn't that apply to the Tea Party too? They want to hold the government hostage over the budget by shutting all funding. Ok, they can do so. Now, they want to compromise, so as not to look like the total fools they are. But why should the government agree to their demands, what does Obama and the Democrats gain by pleasing the Tea Party?
As I already said, Obama and the Democrats gain open parks.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2013, 11:19:40 AM
I'll give another,
Certification for this pay period happens today. A knob payroll exec sent out an email on the 2nd stating do nothing with pay and certify nothing. On 3 October DFAS sent out an email stating to certify all pay in SLCADA as you normally would. Problem is the knob exec and the payroll people are sitting at home. They never inputted the new job order numbers to pay people for FY14 like they were suppose to prior to the fiscal year ending. Welcome to government service. This is your government people.
It's a comedy show. I'll post more as they come up.
You got some fucked up friends elevenb4five
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:41:50 PMShort answer: yes.
If that's the case, you're in for a rough ride of serious economic upheaval as shit gets torn down all over the place; if all it takes is for a party to have the presidency, or a majority in either house to scupper a government program from here on out there's going to be a lot of carnage.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 12:46:17 PM
If that's the case, you're in for a rough ride of serious economic upheaval as shit gets torn down all over the place; if all it takes is for a party to have the presidency, or a majority in either house to scupper a government program from here on out there's going to be a lot of carnage.
Yup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:48:29 PMYup.
So yeah... irresponsible and destructive. Which should answer this question of yours:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PMAs I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 12:46:17 PM
If that's the case, you're in for a rough ride of serious economic upheaval as shit gets torn down all over the place; if all it takes is for a party to have the presidency, or a majority in either house to scupper a government program from here on out there's going to be a lot of carnage.
Yup.
Is this something that you want to see?
This republican offer is the equivalent of Austria-Hungary issuing the ultimatum to Serbia but offering a non-aggression pact with Russia. Why shouldn't Imperial Russia agree to at least a partial peace deal? They at least get partial pace.
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 12:54:32 PM
This republican offer is the equivalent of Austria-Hungary issuing the ultimatum to Serbia but offering a non-aggression pact with Russia. Why shouldn't Imperial Russia agree to at least a partial peace deal? They at least get partial pace.
You think Obama should cause WW1? Over the US budget?
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:48:29 PMYup.
So yeah... irresponsible and destructive. Which should answer this question of yours:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PMAs I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
Not sure I see the connection between keeping parks closed and the principle of funding existing programs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:57:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:48:29 PMYup.
So yeah... irresponsible and destructive. Which should answer this question of yours:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PMAs I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
Not sure I see the connection between keeping parks closed and the principle of funding existing programs.
Obamacare is an existing program. It's been law for quite some time.
Some bits about why Republican grassroots support shutting down the government: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/why-republicans-shut-down-the-government.html
Does this match your observations? If not, where is this off?
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:59:05 PM
Obamacare is an existing program. It's been law for quite some time.
And?
As long as parks are closed it gets funded?
I heard an interesting thing on NPR this morning. A commentator was talking about the shut-down, and the Republicans major concern with Obamacare. She said, "The Republicans are concerned that once it's implemented, it will be impossible to get rid of. It will be even worse if Obamacare succeeds."
I think it's that last bit that bothers me the most. If Obamacare succeeds - if it offers affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans - it will be harder to get rid of.
Is this really how Republicans think? Is it seriously more important to take this away than to see people finally in a position to have affordable healthcare?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:59:05 PM
Obamacare is an existing program. It's been law for quite some time.
And?
As long as parks are closed it gets funded?
As long as parks are closed, Republicans have to deal with the fact that it's a sitting law that requires funding.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:02:24 PM
I heard an interesting thing on NPR this morning. A commentator was talking about the shut-down, and the Republicans major concern with Obamacare. She said, "The Republicans are concerned that once it's implemented, it will be impossible to get rid of. It will be even worse if Obamacare succeeds."
I think it's that last bit that bothers me the most. If Obamacare succeeds - if it offers affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans - it will be harder to get rid of.
Is this really how Republicans think? Is it seriously more important to take this away than to see people finally in a position to have affordable healthcare?
If you disagree with the policies of the other side you are a bad person?
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
If you disagree with the policies of the other side you are a bad person?
When that policy supplies a vital necessity to the majority of the population? Yes, I'd say so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:57:36 PMNot sure I see the connection between keeping parks closed and the principle of funding existing programs.
It's been spelled out for you quite clearly, I think... I'm not sure what you're not getting?
1. Government programs exist; Obamacare is one, maintaining federal parks is another one.
2. The traditional way for getting rid of an unpopular government program is to pass a bill through both houses and have the president sign off on it.
3. If it is controversial, some horse trading is involved.
The new system proposed by the Teaparty Republicans is that as long as anyone controls any one of the Presidency, the Senate, or Congress they should have a line item veto over existing government programs by passing piecemeal individual bills funding only parts they approve of.
It essentially destroys the American system of governance as a functional entity.
Which, perhaps, is the goal?
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
If you disagree with the policies of the other side you are a bad person?
When that policy supplies a vital necessity to the majority of the population? Yes, I'd say so.
Ah. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2013, 01:06:51 PMAh. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.
Your schtick became tired back in 2005.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:03:07 PM
As long as parks are closed, Republicans have to deal with the fact that it's a sitting law that requires funding.
Is there any concievable point at which the narrative switches from "the Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage to kill Obamacare" to "the Democrats are holding the rest of the government hostage to keep Obamacare?"
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 12:54:32 PM
This republican offer is the equivalent of Austria-Hungary issuing the ultimatum to Serbia but offering a non-aggression pact with Russia. Why shouldn't Imperial Russia agree to at least a partial peace deal? They at least get partial pace.
I'm not sure that's a very good analogy, Grumbler, since Imperial Russia should have hung Serbia and the thugs running it at the time out to dry (and almost certainly would have done if Austria-Hungary hadn't delayed their ultimatum for several weeks since it hadn't been that many years since Serbian officers had butchered - literally - their king and his family to place a rival dynast on the throne, something neither Austria-Hungary nor Russia liked or wanted to encourage.) Given what happened during and after WWI it's difficult to see how Imperial Russia could have been worse off had they said yes in the case you postulate above.
I do agree with you though, that allowing funding of some items by various special bills while the main budget is deadlocked sets a terrible precedent.
Looking at the history of US government shutdowns (and particularly those of the Reagan years when they seem to have been a fairly regular event) when did the art of compromise die in Congress? Under Clinton? George W. Bush?
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 01:09:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2013, 01:06:51 PMAh. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.
Your schtick became tired back in 2005.
Which one?
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 01:09:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2013, 01:06:51 PMAh. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.
Your schtick became tired back in 2005.
I think you are taking him way too seriously. At his most intense, The Brain is whimsical. Usually, he isn't even that serious.
Am I correct in understanding that the reason for the shutdown is, in part, due to Boehner using the Hastert rule to prevent a resolution going to the floor for a vote?
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 01:06:11 PM
It's been spelled out for you quite clearly, I think... I'm not sure what you're not getting?
Maybe because nowhere in your quite clear spelling out do you explain how opening or closing parks affects anything.
Quote1. Government programs exist; Obamacare is one, maintaining federal parks is another one.
2. The traditional way for getting rid of an unpopular government program is to pass a bill through both houses and have the president sign off on it.
3. If it is controversial, some horse trading is involved.
The new system proposed by the Teaparty Republicans is that as long as anyone controls any one of the Presidency, the Senate, or Congress they should have a line item veto over existing government programs by passing piecemeal individual bills funding only parts they approve of.
It essentially destroys the American system of governance as a functional entity.
Which, perhaps, is the goal?
Yi, the question was asked and answered, repeatedly. You don't get to pick and choose which laws and obligation you don't mind funding. You're getting really close to the Raz territory now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:11:54 PMIs there any concievable point at which the narrative switches from "the Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage to kill Obamacare" to "the Democrats are holding the rest of the government hostage to keep Obamacare?"
You mean with conditions as they are now? No.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2013, 01:21:23 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the reason for the shutdown is, in part, due to Boehner using the Hastert rule to prevent a resolution going to the floor for a vote?
Somebody posted in the thread earlier that the Hastert rule hasn't been invoked by anybody, I believe.
Which I then had to look up to find out what "rule" was being referred to; at which point I discovered that Boehner seems to have broken this so-called "Hastert rule" more times than his immediate predecessors put together. So I don't think a rule of dubious procedural merit is holding him back from ignoring the minority of his party and making a deal. I'm not 100% certain what is, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:11:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:03:07 PM
As long as parks are closed, Republicans have to deal with the fact that it's a sitting law that requires funding.
Is there any concievable point at which the narrative switches from "the Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage to kill Obamacare" to "the Democrats are holding the rest of the government hostage to keep Obamacare?"
Yes. When Congress and the President - whomever they may be - stops Obamacare from being a law.
Until then? No.
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2013, 01:28:55 PM
Yi, the question was asked and answered, repeatedly. You don't get to pick and choose which laws and obligation you don't mind funding. You're getting really close to the Raz territory now.
Shoo. Let the grown ups talk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:11:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:03:07 PM
As long as parks are closed, Republicans have to deal with the fact that it's a sitting law that requires funding.
Is there any concievable point at which the narrative switches from "the Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage to kill Obamacare" to "the Democrats are holding the rest of the government hostage to keep Obamacare?"
The Republicans hope there is.
But realistically, no.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:22:21 PMMaybe because nowhere in your quite clear spelling out do you explain how opening or closing parks affects anything.
As DGuller says:
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2013, 01:28:55 PM
Yi, the question was asked and answered, repeatedly. You don't get to pick and choose which laws and obligation you don't mind funding.
Because:
Quote from: JacobIt essentially destroys the American system of governance as a functional entity.
ok, to get a clarification, is the technical obstacle the failure of a house resolution or is it the unwillingness of the speaker to put such a resolution to a vote?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2013, 01:28:55 PM
Yi, the question was asked and answered, repeatedly. You don't get to pick and choose which laws and obligation you don't mind funding. You're getting really close to the Raz territory now.
Shoo. Let the grown ups talk.
When it comes to this subject, it would be a very boring conversation, since they would all hold one view.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2013, 01:28:55 PM
Yi, the question was asked and answered, repeatedly. You don't get to pick and choose which laws and obligation you don't mind funding. You're getting really close to the Raz territory now.
Shoo. Let the grown ups talk.
:huh:
I don't think DG is the one acting childish here.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2013, 01:31:22 PM
ok, to get a clarification, is the technical obstacle the failure of a house resolution or is it the unwillingness of the speaker to put such a resolution to a vote?
As I understand it, Boehner could put a house resolution to a vote this moment and it would pass.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 01:31:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:22:21 PMMaybe because nowhere in your quite clear spelling out do you explain how opening or closing parks affects anything.
As DGuller says:
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2013, 01:28:55 PM
Yi, the question was asked and answered, repeatedly. You don't get to pick and choose which laws and obligation you don't mind funding.
Because:
Quote from: JacobIt essentially destroys the American system of governance as a functional entity.
I am unaware of anything in either the Constitution or Congress' internal rules that states an existing program must be funded.
If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:33:54 PM
I am unaware of anything in either the Constitution or Congress' internal rules that states an existing program must be funded.
If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So you're okay with our government going this route in future? For anything?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:33:54 PMI am unaware of anything in either the Constitution or Congress' internal rules that states an existing program must be funded.
If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Is your argument that the Republicans actions are legal according to the Constitution and follow Congress' internal rules? Because if you are, you won't get anyone disagreeing with you.
Or are you arguing that the Republicans are not undermining the ability of the American government to function if they get their way? Because if you are, we are in disagreement.
I'll also note that you initially questioned the reasoning behind the position that the Republicans are acting irresponsible by holding the government and US economy hostage, and thus they cannot be given in to; you were not asking about the legality.
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2013, 12:54:32 PM
This republican offer is the equivalent of Austria-Hungary issuing the ultimatum to Serbia but offering a non-aggression pact with Russia. Why shouldn't Imperial Russia agree to at least a partial peace deal? They at least get partial pace.
Indeed. And if you refuse such an offer, then clearly you are not someone who cares about peace.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:36:08 PM
So you're okay with our government going this route in future? For anything?
No I'm not. I prefer the government stay open. I would like to see Obamacare funded.* The Republicans have launched a suicidal gambit that I expect to bit them in the ass.
All that being said, I still think parks being open is better than parks being closed.
*I would prefer they got rid of the voodoo bullshit that "funded" half of Obamacare originally and replaced it with real money.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2013, 01:31:22 PM
ok, to get a clarification, is the technical obstacle the failure of a house resolution or is it the unwillingness of the speaker to put such a resolution to a vote?
As I understand it, Boehner could put a house resolution to a vote this moment and it would pass.
sigh, so the speaker has gone full partisan and just not caring about the process... seriously in most civilized nations speakers are expected to act neutrally. For example the speaker in parliament in england is the only member that never faces a contested election. In norway the office usually goes to a prominent member of the opposition who's last chance at being a minister was winning the latest general election.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
Is your argument that the Republicans actions are legal according to the Constitution and follow Congress' internal rules? Because if you are, you won't get anyone disagreeing with you.
Or are you arguing that the Republicans are not undermining the ability of the American government to function if they get their way? Because if you are, we are in disagreement.
I'll also note that you initially questioned the reasoning behind the position that the Republicans are acting irresponsible by holding the government and US economy hostage, and thus they cannot be given in to; you were not asking about the legality.
What does any of this have to do with the statement "you don't get to pick and choose which existing programs you fund?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:11:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:03:07 PM
As long as parks are closed, Republicans have to deal with the fact that it's a sitting law that requires funding.
Is there any concievable point at which the narrative switches from "the Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage to kill Obamacare" to "the Democrats are holding the rest of the government hostage to keep Obamacare?"
Of course - the moment a bill repealing Obamacare is passed, and the Dems refuse to fund the government unless the bill is ignored.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:40:16 PM
No I'm not. I prefer the government stay open. I would like to see Obamacare funded.* The Republicans have launched a suicidal gambit that I expect to bit them in the ass.
All that being said, I still think parks being open is better than parks being closed.
*I would prefer they got rid of the voodoo bullshit that "funded" half of Obamacare originally and replaced it with real money.
And you see all of that happening if the Democrats allow this kind of piecemeal budgeting?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:33:54 PM
I am unaware of anything in either the Constitution or Congress' internal rules that states an existing program must be funded.
If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
That is, perhaps, a part of the problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:41:18 PMWhat does any of this have to do with the statement "you don't get to pick and choose which existing programs you fund?
I don't understand what you're getting at.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2013, 01:40:41 PMsigh, so the speaker has gone full partisan and just not caring about the process... seriously in most civilized nations speakers are expected to act neutrally. For example the speaker in parliament in england is the only member that never faces a contested election. In norway the office usually goes to a prominent member of the opposition who's last chance at being a minister was winning the latest general election.
There's been a lot of writing about what motivates Boehner. A lot of theories centre around the threat from the Tea party faction to depose him if he doesn't align with them.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:41:55 PM
And you see all of that happening if the Democrats allow this kind of piecemeal budgeting?
I see a serious possibility of blockage of parks et al of negatively impacting public perception of Democrats.
Quote from: Berkut on October 04, 2013, 12:29:41 PM
I don't think it is a matter of everything or nothing, it is a matter of saying that funding things that are agreed upon while not funding the rest is tantamount to simply passing the House bill that defunds Oabmacare to begin with.
well, that's kinda what I meant, but you worded it better :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:44:48 PM
As I already said, Obama and the Democrats gain open parks.
that does not profit them. It profits the Republicans. They can be seen as "reasonable". And they get less pressure from their constituants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:41:55 PM
And you see all of that happening if the Democrats allow this kind of piecemeal budgeting?
I see a serious possibility of blockage of parks et al of negatively impacting public perception of Democrats.
That didn't answer the question.
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2013, 01:55:43 PM
that does not profit them. It profits the Republicans. They can be seen as "reasonable". And they get less pressure from their constituants.
Closed parks profit Democrats as long as the public thinks parks are closed because of Republicans.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:59:44 PM
That didn't answer the question.
It was an attempt to.
In the absence of Constitutional or procedural rules forcing funding, this is all a battle for public opinion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 02:01:18 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:59:44 PM
That didn't answer the question.
It was an attempt to.
In the absence of Constitutional or procedural rules forcing funding, this is all a battle for public opinion.
The question was, do you see the government staying open and Obamacare being funded if the Dems allow this kind of piecemeal budgeting?
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 02:03:46 PM
The question was, do you see the government staying open and Obamacare being funded if the Dems allow this kind of piecemeal budgeting?
I don't understand the question. Will it be a certainty? Will it increase the chances? What do you mean?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
I see a serious possibility of blockage of parks et al of negatively impacting public perception of Democrats.
If the Democrats agree to let the Republicans agenda go as they see fit, what is the point of having elections to elect non Republicans in office?
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2013, 02:12:13 PM
If the Democrats agree to let the Republicans agenda go as they see fit, what is the point of having elections to elect non Republicans in office?
To block Republican legislation and/or control of the executive?
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2013, 01:21:23 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the reason for the shutdown is, in part, due to Boehner using the Hastert rule to prevent a resolution going to the floor for a vote?
Insofar as I know, Boehner has not invoked the Hastert Rule, nor has there been an actual caucus to discover how many Republican House members would oppose a continuing resolution.
Boehner appears to be avoiding a vote on the principal that he doesn't want to know the truth, all he wants is to avoid pissing off the TPers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 02:09:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 02:03:46 PM
The question was, do you see the government staying open and Obamacare being funded if the Dems allow this kind of piecemeal budgeting?
I don't understand the question. Will it be a certainty? Will it increase the chances? What do you mean?
Any of the above.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
Any of the above.
Slightly higher chance IMO.
Hmm. Quite a few others disagree with you.
You do now, at least, understand why people take issue with the idea of keeping the parks closed, yes?
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 03:03:06 PM
You do now, at least, understand why people take issue with the idea of keeping the parks closed, yes?
I've always understood it. Democrats need some leverage to get the House to vote funding for Obamacare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 03:05:42 PMI've always understood it. Democrats need some leverage to get the House to vote funding for Obamacare.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 03:03:06 PM
You do now, at least, understand why people take issue with the idea of keeping the parks closed, yes?
I've always understood it. Democrats need some leverage to get the House to vote funding for Obamacare.
:huh:
So then what was this all about?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
This piecemeal crap isn't going to help the situation. They need to get their asses back to fixing the damn budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand this logic. If parks being closed is a bad thing, shouldn't opening them be a good thing?
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
That's certainly how liberals who would like the federal government to take care of all of us for our own good feel. I have not missed the federal government in the least. Some of us lOoking at the big picture believe that a government shut down may help us see how blOated the federal government has become and how little it's missed by 53 per cent of Americans.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 03:09:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 03:05:42 PMI've always understood it. Democrats need some leverage to get the House to vote funding for Obamacare.
:lol:
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 03:09:25 PM
:huh:
So then what was this all about?
I've already explained. The leverage works if the public perceives the parks as closed because the Republicans are holding it hostage. If perception shifts, the leverage doesn't work.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 04, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
That's certainly how liberals who would like the federal government to take care of all of us for our own good feel. I have not missed the federal government in the least. Some of us lOoking at the big picture believe that a government shut down may help us see how blOated the federal government has become and how little it's missed by 53 per cent of Americans.
A lot of that other 47% may have to rethink their decision to vote Republican.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 04, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
That's certainly how liberals who would like the federal government to take care of all of us for our own good feel. I have not missed the federal government in the least. Some of us lOoking at the big picture believe that a government shut down may help us see how blOated the federal government has become and how little it's missed by 53 per cent of Americans.
It's lovely that it's not affected you. I'm pretty sure that that's not the case for many others.
I've a feeling those who are now effective unemployed don't feel that way. Nor those who are working without pay while their co-workers sit on their hands.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 04, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
That's certainly how liberals who would like the federal government to take care of all of us for our own good feel. I have not missed the federal government in the least. Some of us lOoking at the big picture believe that a government shut down may help us see how blOated the federal government has become and how little it's missed by 53 per cent of Americans.
It's lovely that it's not affected you. I'm pretty sure that that's not the case for many others.
I've a feeling those who are now effective unemployed don't feel that way. Nor those who are working without pay while their co-workers sit on their hands.
Well his point is that those people should not be employed by the federal government as their is no real need for them be employed by the federal government. That might be true or not, I really have no idea. But this isn't the way to find it out.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 03:30:52 PM
Well his point is that those people should not be employed by the federal government as their is no real need for them be employed by the federal government. That might be true or not, I really have no idea. But this isn't the way to find it out.
I understood his point. And I agree with you that this isn't the way to go about this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 03:16:52 PM:lol:
I was a bit confused by the bit earlier in the discussion when you said you didn't understand it, but it's all good :cheers:
So apparently the Democrats have hit on a procedural ploy to allow them to turn a previously filed Republican bill into a clean continuing resolution and bring it forward with a discharge petition.
If 17-18 or more moderate Republicans are willing to sign on to a clean CR, then the government should be up and running before the debt ceiling expires.
According to this, at least... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/04/dems-move-to-force-republicans-to-reopen-the-government/
We'll see how it pans out.
Meanwhile, major defense firms start laying off people: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/326687-defense-firms-to-begin-thousands-of-furloughs-monday
QuoteLockheed Martin, Boeing and other defense firms will furlough thousands of employees starting on Monday if the government shutdown has not ended.
Lockheed Martin said Friday that 3,000 employees would face furloughs on Monday due to the shutdown.
United Technologies Corp.'s (UTC) subsidiary Sikorsky plans to furlough 2,000 employees Monday if the shutdown is still in effect, and the defense firm said Pratt and Whitney and UTC Aerospace System could also issue 2,000 furloughs next week.
In all, UTC said more than 5,000 employees could be furloughed if the shutdown lasted into November.
Boeing said that it could issue furloughs "in the coming days," and BAE Systems Inc. indicated 10 to 15 percent of its 35,000-person workforce could be impacted by the shutdown.
The defense industry warned the Pentagon in a letter Thursday that thousands of furloughs would hit the industry due to the 400,000 civilians who are furloughed within the Defense Department.
... but at least Newt Gingrich has his priorities straight. He offered to pay our of his personal funds to keep the Smithsonian Zoo's panda cam running in spite of the shutdown: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/newt-zoo-shutdown
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 03:49:08 PM
So apparently the Democrats have hit on a procedural ploy to allow them to turn a previously filed Republican bill into a clean continuing resolution and bring it forward with a discharge petition.
If 17-18 or more moderate Republicans are willing to sign on to a clean CR, then the government should be up and running before the debt ceiling expires.
According to this, at least... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/04/dems-move-to-force-republicans-to-reopen-the-government/
We'll see how it pans out.
That may work, at least puts pressure to get something going.
If my employer were fucking with my paycheck I'd quit instantly.
It seems insane to allow this train to roll on into the buffer of the debt ceiling or is no one going to apply the brakes on this runaway train ?
Won't the president and congress need a clear week or so to sort out the debt ceiling/crisis ?
Quote from: mongers on October 04, 2013, 04:15:00 PM
It seems insane to allow this train to roll on into the buffer of the debt ceiling or is no one going to apply the brakes on this runaway train ?
Won't the president and congress need a clear week or so to sort out the debt ceiling/crisis ?
You don't understand the severity of the situation for the Republicans for the last several years. Here is an artistic representation of their angst:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I
http://youtu.be/Nm-tAFB7bMY
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2013, 04:31:11 PM
http://youtu.be/Nm-tAFB7bMY
I would have thought you'd go with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRdxUFDoQe0
don't tell me you are not bored of it. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2013, 04:50:44 PM
don't tell me you are not bored of it. :rolleyes:
Is America now governed worst than Hungary yet ? :unsure:
CNN aired footage of the GOP Congressman berating the US Park Ranger.
What I don't get about the story is, how do you close an outdoor memorial?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 05:29:43 PMWhat I don't get about the story is, how do you close an outdoor memorial?
Is that a rhetorical question?
As I understand it, they boarded it up and possibly put some cordons up as well.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 05:32:06 PM
As I understand it, they boarded it up and possibly put some cordons up as well.
Why in the world did they do that?
It doesn't take any funding to not put up cordons and let people walk around rocks in the ground. I've been by memorials plenty of times when no staff were around.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 05:38:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 05:32:06 PM
As I understand it, they boarded it up and possibly put some cordons up as well.
Why in the world did they do that?
It doesn't take any funding to not put up cordons and let people walk around rocks in the ground. I've been by memorials plenty of times when no staff were around.
And lose their jobs? Great idea.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 05:38:15 PMWhy in the world did they do that?
It doesn't take any funding to not put up cordons and let people walk around rocks in the ground. I've been by memorials plenty of times when no staff were around.
Liability issues? Maintenance issues? Internal bureaucratic cover your ass issues because the person who could override the decision is on furlough?
Quote from: Rasputin on October 04, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
That's certainly how liberals who would like the federal government to take care of all of us for our own good feel. I have not missed the federal government in the least. Some of us lOoking at the big picture believe that a government shut down may help us see how blOated the federal government has become and how little it's missed by 53 per cent of Americans.
You know, yeah--I wish the federal government would go away... just for you.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 05:55:18 PM
You know, yeah--I wish the federal government would go away... just for you.
And replace it with your Marxist-Krugmanist Death Cult.
If Boehner doesn't have the spine to deal with them, the traditional conservatives should depose him and put someone in charge that can. There has to be someone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-03/boehner-finds-splintered-party-is-hard-to-lead.html
QuoteBoehner Finds Splintered Party Is Hard to Lead
By Ezra Klein Oct 4, 2013 6:06 AM GMT+0900
We're used to brinkmanship in Washington resulting from conflict between Democrats and Republicans. But this shutdown is different. It's a fight between Republicans and Republicans -- or, more specifically, Republicans and the Tea Party.
In 1995 and 1996, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich proudly led Republicans into their shutdown fight with President Bill Clinton. But Speaker John Boehner didn't want this week's shutdown. He didn't want to sign onto Republican Senator Ted Cruz's doomed effort to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Boehner's strategy was to pass a clean bill to fund the government at or near current sequestration levels - - a major victory for Republicans, by the way -- and then secure additional spending cuts in negotiations over the debt ceiling.
The dysfunctions of the House Republican Conference are often blamed on the so-called Hastert rule. The Hastert rule, which isn't an actual rule, is named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who famously tried to bring to the floor only bills that had the support of a majority of House Republicans. Boehner has generally followed it, which is why he won't allow the Senate's immigration bill on the floor; it may have the support of a majority of the House, but it doesn't have support from a majority of House Republicans.
Minority Domination
What's strange and fascinating about the shutdown debacle, however, is that a majority of House Republicans were with Boehner: They didn't want a shutdown. "Two thirds want a clean CR," Representative Peter King told the National Review, using the acronym for a "continuing resolution" to fund the government. "Including some of the people who got elected as tea-party candidates from the South. You talk to them, they think this is crazy."
The White House thinks it's crazy, too. "One faction of one party, in one house of Congress, in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election," President Barack Obama said this week.
The question that's puzzling Washington is how a minority of the majority is managing to dominate the House of Representatives.
Robert Costa, Washington bureau chief for the National Review, estimates that there are only "30 to 40 true hardliners" among House Republicans. He says more than 100 House Republicans are solidly behind Boehner. But Boehner's troops are scared. "Could they stand firm when pressured by the 30 or 40 hardliners and the outside groups?" he asked.
You'd think they could. Or, at the least, you'd think Boehner could. Typically, party leaders protect the mainstream members from the demands of the fringe. They control fundraising and committee assignments and the floor schedule, which gives them substantial power over individual members. And if outside groups want a seat at the table, they need to stay on leadership's good side, which tends to keep them from going too far off the reservation. But the Republican leadership no longer has the strength to play that role. "What we're seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power," Costa said.
Having previously failed to rally Tea Party adherents behind him in negotiations over the fiscal cliff, Boehner can no longer serve that function in the House. "Ever since Plan B failed on the fiscal cliff in January and you saw Boehner in near tears in front of his conference, he's been crippled," Costa said.
Boehner's Pandering
Boehner faces no plausible threat from traditional conservatives in his conference. They believe he's one of them, they're comforted that he's speaker, and they're generally terrified that a Tea Partier might replace him if he retires or is pushed out. The threat to Boehner comes from the right of his conference. Consequently, he panders to the fringe; as long as they're happy, he's safe.
Members of the Republican establishment are agog. Cruz "pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away," said conservative stalwart Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. But the real problem is that House Republican leaders didn't push back.
The reason the establishment has such trouble with the Tea Party is that the Tea Party really, truly means it. They don't want to cut a deal. They don't want to get the most that they reasonably can. Most represent extremely safe Republican districts and don't care about positioning the party as a whole for the next election. Traditional politicians such as Boehner have no playbook for dealing with a powerful faction that's completely uninterested in strategic or pragmatic concerns.
Back in 2011, the Republican establishment was sufficiently in sync with the Tea Party to harness their recklessness against the Obama administration. Boehner argued that his new members were just wild enough to crash through the debt ceiling and harm the economy, which gave him crucial leverage in his negotiations with the White House.
But then Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, and the Republican establishment began to alter its approach. The Tea Party, however, didn't. Now Boehner and other mainstream Republicans dealing with Tea Party legislators face the same problem Democrats faced in 2011: It's hard to negotiate with people who don't care about, or even really believe in, the consequences of burning the place down.
Boehner's problems aren't such a surprise to Christopher Parker, a political scientist at the University of Washington and co-author of "Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America." In 2011, Parker began running massive surveys of self-described conservatives in 13 states. He controlled for every demographic characteristic and political opinion he could think of. Tea Partiers, he found, were simply different from other conservatives. In one telling example, 71 percent of Tea Party conservatives agreed Obama was "destroying the country" -- an opinion shared by only 6 percent of conservatives who didn't identify with the Tea Party.[/b
Fundamental Changes
On measure after measure, Tea Party members expressed fear that the country was changing in fundamental ways. They were much likelier to view Obama as a literal threat to the nation. They were more conspiratorial in their interpretation of politics. They viewed politics as less like a negotiation among stakeholders and more like a struggle for survival.
"You've got about 52 members of the Republican conference who are affiliated with the Tea Party in some official way," Parker said. "That's a bit less than a quarter of all House Republicans. That's enough in the House. They refuse to compromise because, to them, compromise is capitulation. If you go back to Richard Hofstadter's work when he's talking about when the John Birch Society rode high, he talks about how conservatives would see people who disagree as political opponents, but reactionary conservatives saw them as evil. You can't capitulate to evil."
The problem for Boehner and the rest of the Republican establishment is that the Tea Party ethos is now being turned against them. After all, mainstream conservatives will compromise with "evil" (or, if you prefer, "Democrats"). For Tea Partiers, that makes them suspect, too. In fact, one way Tea Party Republicans can prove they haven't sold out to Washington's ways is by opposing any compromise Boehner proposes.
The conventional wisdom in American politics used to be that Republicans followed their leaders while Democrats were barely unified enough to be considered an organized political party. Today, the reverse is true. Democrats largely follow their leaders while Republicans have splintered into two distinct political groups that uneasily share a single party.
That's the real challenge complicating the shutdown and the debt ceiling. The problem isn't that Boehner and Obama can't reach an agreement. It's that Boehner and Obama and the Tea Party can't.
Also on CNN: an unnamed "high ranking White House official" told the WSJ that "it doesn't matter how long this goes on because we're winning."
Quick disavowal by Obama and equally quick jump by Boehner.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 01:41:55 PM
And you see all of that happening if the Democrats allow this kind of piecemeal budgeting?
I see a serious possibility of blockage of parks et al of negatively impacting public perception of Democrats.
[/quote
I have faith in voters. I think they'll see that as nakedly political, which it is.
I don't think this will really hit home until mid-October which, I believe, is when most Federal employees are meant to get paid. More worryingly from a long-term perspective is that American science and tech research funding is granted in annual blocks and the point when it's granted/renewed is coming up, which could be problematic.
Perhaps the Tea-Partyists want to so wreck the American economy, that it'll crash to a level were they really could introduce a non-fiat, precious medals back currency ? :ph34r:
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 05:38:15 PMWhy in the world did they do that?
It doesn't take any funding to not put up cordons and let people walk around rocks in the ground. I've been by memorials plenty of times when no staff were around.
Liability issues? Maintenance issues? Internal bureaucratic cover your ass issues because the person who could override the decision is on furlough?
Probably it was done just to make people who wanted to visit the memorial upset about the shutdown in order to bring more pressure to bear on Congress.
Quote from: dps on October 04, 2013, 06:32:42 PM
Probably it was done just to make people who wanted to visit the memorial upset about the shutdown in order to bring more pressure to bear on Congress.
This is the most logical answer.
Maybe they wanted to keep people from setting themselves on fire and damaging important things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 06:34:28 PMThis is the most logical answer.
At least, it is the answer you prefer.
So wait... it was a rhetorical question after all?
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 06:44:27 PM
At least, it is the answer you prefer.
It was a helluva lot better than the lame crap you pulled out of your ass. Maintenance?? Liability?? Bureaucratic snafu??
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 06:46:26 PMIt was a helluva lot better than the lame crap you pulled out of your ass. Maintenance?? Liability?? Bureaucratic snafu??
:lol:
Okay, we're done for tonight. Have a good one :cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 06:44:27 PM
At least, it is the answer you prefer.
It was a helluva lot better than the lame crap you pulled out of your ass. Maintenance?? Liability?? Bureaucratic snafu??
Do you really think Obama has decided which monuments will stay open and which will close?
It seems the Republicans have a strategy: cut off funding until they get their way, and then find a few questionable decisions to close things down and pin them on Obama.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 04, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
Do you really think Obama has decided which monuments will stay open and which will close?
Of course not.
That's Bo's job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 08:58:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 04, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
Do you really think Obama has decided which monuments will stay open and which will close?
Of course not.
Then why put this on him?
I admit to not reading most of this thread, so sorry if I'm going over well worn ground.
It seems as though these are decisions that would be made by civil servants, who would probably be conservative in their decisions. There may be some conservatism based on risk aversion. There could also be some spite involved (the public isn't going to pay me for a while, they can do without their monument). There could even be some turf defending (if I am a ranger overseeing a monument, I may see it staying open without me as a threat).
None of those seem political.
Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2013, 04:03:40 PM
... but at least Newt Gingrich has his priorities straight. He offered to pay our of his personal funds to keep the Smithsonian Zoo's panda cam running in spite of the shutdown: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/newt-zoo-shutdown
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on October 04, 2013, 09:29:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 08:58:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 04, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
Do you really think Obama has decided which monuments will stay open and which will close?
Of course not.
Then why put this on him?
I admit to not reading most of this thread, so sorry if I'm going over well worn ground.
It seems as though these are decisions that would be made by civil servants, who would probably be conservative in their decisions. There may be some conservatism based on risk aversion. There could also be some spite involved (the public isn't going to pay me for a while, they can do without their monument). There could even be some turf defending (if I am a ranger overseeing a monument, I may see it staying open without me as a threat).
None of those seem political.
Yi didn't. :mellow:
Quote from: alfred russel link=topic=10462.msg649674#msg649674Then why put this on him?
I don't.
QuoteThere could also be some spite involved (the public isn't going to pay me for a while, they can do without their monument).
This, and the desire to make the public feel the pain of the shutdown, so they can pressure their reps, is how I see it (originally stated by dps).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Quote from: dps on October 04, 2013, 06:32:42 PM
Probably it was done just to make people who wanted to visit the memorial upset about the shutdown in order to bring more pressure to bear on Congress.
This is the most logical answer.
No. The most logical answer is that they did not want be responsible for the premises and the visitors when they are not getting paid for it.
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2013, 03:18:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Quote from: dps on October 04, 2013, 06:32:42 PM
Probably it was done just to make people who wanted to visit the memorial upset about the shutdown in order to bring more pressure to bear on Congress.
This is the most logical answer.
No. The most logical answer is that they did not want be responsible for the premises and the visitors when they are not getting paid for it.
No, the most logical answer is that they cannot responsibly provide visitors with the services and standard of care that they are legally required to when most of the park rangers are not available.
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 04:22:14 AM
No, the most logical answer is that they cannot responsibly provide visitors with the services and standard of care that they are legally required to when most of the park rangers are not available.
Pretty sure most visitors to memorials and historical sites don't really need any services as such--they just want to look at the monuments.
Obviously, for people wanting to take part in outdoor activities at national parks (hiking the back country, etc.) it's a different story.
Quote from: Tamas
No. The most logical answer is that they did not want be responsible for the premises and the visitors when they are not getting paid for it.
Then why were they showing up to put up barriers? And I'm pretty sure that furloughed government workers wouldn't be individually liable for anything that happened to tourists during their furlough anyway.
They were closing shop before they left?
Quote from: dps on October 05, 2013, 06:02:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 04:22:14 AM
No, the most logical answer is that they cannot responsibly provide visitors with the services and standard of care that they are legally required to when most of the park rangers are not available.
Pretty sure most visitors to memorials and historical sites don't really need any services as such--they just want to look at the monuments.
Obviously, for people wanting to take part in outdoor activities at national parks (hiking the back country, etc.) it's a different story.
Quote from: Tamas
No. The most logical answer is that they did not want be responsible for the premises and the visitors when they are not getting paid for it.
Then why were they showing up to put up barriers? And I'm pretty sure that furloughed government workers wouldn't be individually liable for anything that happened to tourists during their furlough anyway.
Right. Leaving the site open but unguarded is the right thing to do! And it's Obama's fault anyway.
Yeah. I think maintenance and liability are pretty obvious reasons to close them. Especially because (presumably) some services are also provided by DC, who are also shutdown.
It sure is, unless the FTCA got shut down too.
Quote from: dps on October 05, 2013, 06:02:21 AM
Then why were they showing up to put up barriers? And I'm pretty sure that furloughed government workers wouldn't be individually liable for anything that happened to tourists during their furlough anyway.
I am not sure I understand what you and Yi are talking about. In what way is the closed-because-of-shutdown memorial's "barriers" any different from its closed-for-the-night barriers? If the memorial was closed for the night on Monday, and didn't open Tuesday morning because the workers who would open it were told to stay home, wouldn't the "barriers" still be up, without anyone showing up and putting them up?
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2013, 12:47:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 04, 2013, 09:29:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2013, 08:58:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 04, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
Do you really think Obama has decided which monuments will stay open and which will close?
Of course not.
Then why put this on him?
I admit to not reading most of this thread, so sorry if I'm going over well worn ground.
It seems as though these are decisions that would be made by civil servants, who would probably be conservative in their decisions. There may be some conservatism based on risk aversion. There could also be some spite involved (the public isn't going to pay me for a while, they can do without their monument). There could even be some turf defending (if I am a ranger overseeing a monument, I may see it staying open without me as a threat).
None of those seem political.
Yi didn't. :mellow:
I should have read more of the thread before posting.
I've heard of Republicans blaming Obama for this stuff, and read into some things Yi was posting so that I thought he was making the same arguments. My bad.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politics/weather-service-cryptic-message/index.html?sr=fb100513weathermessage103a
QuoteHidden in National Weather Service forecast: P-L-E-A-S-E-P-A-Y-U-S
(CNN) -- Sometimes, it pays to read between the lines.
At least that may be the message --and, more accurately, the hope -- of workers at the National Weather Service office in Anchorage, Alaska.
The message can be found in an official forecast put out at 5 a.m. (9 a.m. ET) that seems, at first glance, routine with its discussion of air pressure, wind speeds and weather systems.
But if you line up the first letters of each word from top-to-bottom in the forecast, under the heading "Analysis and Upper levels," there's something else there: P-L-E-A-S-E-P-A-Y-U-S.
That breaks down into three simple words: Please pay us.
Meteorologists at the service's Anchorage office declined Friday afternoon to comment on the possibly cryptic wording, saying they can only speak about weather-related matters. It was not immediately clear who exactly put out the forecast or whether a message was intentionally tucked into it.
Still, it's no secret that National Weather Service employees -- like other federal government employees -- aren't getting paid as long as the government is shut down. That began Tuesday and there has been no indication that it will end anytime soon, with Democrats and Republicans holding firm on their positions that the other is to blame and that they won't budge.
Up to 800,000 federal workers are at risk of furlough, meaning they won't report to work until the sides agree on a spending plan that President Barack Obama signs into law.
Other federal employees are still working, because what they do is considered essential by the government. That includes many at the National Weather Service.
Whenever the shutdown ends, these government workers should get back-pay. But there's no telling when that will happen, meaning they could work for days, weeks or months before they take home a paycheck.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnn%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F131004191025-weather-service-prank-story-top.png&hash=e4d073652b19cbbad5a277d38b6be46e3aedb381)
Quote from: Syt on October 05, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Quote
But if you line up the first letters of each word from top-to-bottom in the forecast, under the heading "Analysis and Upper levels," there's something else there: P-L-E-A-S-E-P-A-Y-U-S.
:hmm: :huh:
QuoteQuote
That breaks down into three simple words: Please pay us.
:o
The combined monthly pay of all National Weather Service employees in Alaska is enough to feed katmai for a week.
Just a week?
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2013, 11:18:23 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 05, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Quote
But if you line up the first letters of each word from top-to-bottom in the forecast, under the heading "Analysis and Upper levels," there's something else there: P-L-E-A-S-E-P-A-Y-U-S.
:hmm: :huh:
QuoteQuote
That breaks down into three simple words: Please pay us.
:o
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on October 05, 2013, 11:23:32 AM
The combined monthly pay of all National Weather Service employees in Alaska is enough to feed katmai for a week.
<_<
P-L-E-A-S-E-P-L-A-T-Y-P-U-S
QuoteHouse votes to approve back pay for furloughed workers
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2013, 12:26:26 PM
QuoteHouse votes to approve back pay for furloughed workers
Quote(Newser) – For furloughed federal employees, annoyance has just turned into a paid vacation. The House of Representatives today unanimously passed a bill to make sure that everyone told to stay home during the government shutdown will get back pay, reports the Hill. The measure is expected to zip through the Senate and then get a quick signature from the president. "Today, 17 years ago, federal workers were given back pay after Newt Gingrich's record 21-day shutdown in 1995 and 1996," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "It was a fair thing to do then, and it is a fair thing to do now." (It's good news for those clever federal weather forecasters who made their plea in a hidden message.)
I want to be non-essential and get a paid vacation. The cops always get screwed. :cry:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 05, 2013, 12:29:21 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2013, 12:26:26 PM
QuoteHouse votes to approve back pay for furloughed workers
Quote(Newser) – For furloughed federal employees, annoyance has just turned into a paid vacation. The House of Representatives today unanimously passed a bill to make sure that everyone told to stay home during the government shutdown will get back pay, reports the Hill. The measure is expected to zip through the Senate and then get a quick signature from the president. "Today, 17 years ago, federal workers were given back pay after Newt Gingrich's record 21-day shutdown in 1995 and 1996," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "It was a fair thing to do then, and it is a fair thing to do now." (It's good news for those clever federal weather forecasters who made their plea in a hidden message.)
I want to be non-essential and get a paid vacation. The cops always get screwed. :cry:
Me too. I would spend the time on the trails, playing video games and catching up on movies.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 05, 2013, 12:29:21 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2013, 12:26:26 PM
QuoteHouse votes to approve back pay for furloughed workers
Quote(Newser) – For furloughed federal employees, annoyance has just turned into a paid vacation. The House of Representatives today unanimously passed a bill to make sure that everyone told to stay home during the government shutdown will get back pay, reports the Hill. The measure is expected to zip through the Senate and then get a quick signature from the president. "Today, 17 years ago, federal workers were given back pay after Newt Gingrich's record 21-day shutdown in 1995 and 1996," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "It was a fair thing to do then, and it is a fair thing to do now." (It's good news for those clever federal weather forecasters who made their plea in a hidden message.)
I want to be non-essential and get a paid vacation. The cops always get screwed. :cry:
Good deal if you don't care
when you get paid.
Quote from: katmai on October 05, 2013, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 05, 2013, 11:23:32 AM
The combined monthly pay of all National Weather Service employees in Alaska is enough to feed katmai for a week.
<_<
You didn't think I'd let your comment in the baseball thread go unanswered? :P
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1385939_10151612994996277_567940472_n.jpg)
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2013, 07:58:09 AM
Right. Leaving the site open but unguarded is the right thing to do!
Open and unguarded is the natural condition of monuments on the mall.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 01:27:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2013, 07:58:09 AM
Right. Leaving the site open but unguarded is the right thing to do!
Open and unguarded is the natural condition of monuments on the mall.
So what do you guys want to hear? That they should have left the monument alone and open to whatever? Maybe, MAYBE beside being righteously pissed, they are also serious about their work, and were not willing to throw their hands up in the air and leave what they have been protecting for potential ruin?
Sure.
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2013, 01:40:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 01:27:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2013, 07:58:09 AM
Right. Leaving the site open but unguarded is the right thing to do!
Open and unguarded is the natural condition of monuments on the mall.
So what do you guys want to hear? That they should have left the monument alone and open to whatever? Maybe, MAYBE beside being righteously pissed, they are also serious about their work, and were not willing to throw their hands up in the air and leave what they have been protecting for potential ruin?
Read Yi's post right before yours.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 01:27:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2013, 07:58:09 AM
Right. Leaving the site open but unguarded is the right thing to do!
Open and unguarded is the natural condition of monuments on the mall.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2Fac1394dbdcca6a36cbf486633b129cd813095ac3%2Fr%3Dx404%26amp%3Bc%3D534x401%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F2013%2F07%2F26%2F1374857787000-2-monument-1307261259_4_3.jpg&hash=7daddc9382637a3889b68b88e66ce9ad4acdfcd3)
not quite... they are actively guarded to keep them accessible and unvandalized.
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 01:27:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2013, 07:58:09 AM
Right. Leaving the site open but unguarded is the right thing to do!
Open and unguarded is the natural condition of monuments on the mall.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2Fac1394dbdcca6a36cbf486633b129cd813095ac3%2Fr%3Dx404%26amp%3Bc%3D534x401%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F2013%2F07%2F26%2F1374857787000-2-monument-1307261259_4_3.jpg&hash=7daddc9382637a3889b68b88e66ce9ad4acdfcd3)
not quite... they are actively guarded to keep them accessible and unvandalized.
Wait is that guy exempted?????
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 04:44:45 PM
not quite... they are actively guarded to keep them accessible and unvandalized.
What are you basing this on?
I'm basing mine on the fact that I've visited various Washington monuments many times, at various times of the day and night. The National Phallus usually has a ranger or two during the day, but I've never noticed rangers at others.
It's not that different from various statuary and war dead obelisks and whatnot in other countries. There's a statue in a park, and no one guarding it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 01:27:58 PM
Open and unguarded is the natural condition of monuments on the mall.
Not true.
Just wondering but has anyone read a decent piece on what the argument was among Republicans to do this? I get the emotions and that side of thing, but from a party perspective what was the upside. Why was this path a good one for Republicans to take?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 05, 2013, 08:11:25 PM
Just wondering but has anyone read a decent piece on what the argument was among Republicans to do this? I get the emotions and that side of thing, but from a party perspective what was the upside. Why was this path a good one for Republicans to take?
They dont like black people. Who knows. I wonder if they're still sore about how Obamacare got passed?
Both of those are emotions and I get that. What I mean is what's the political upside? What benefits do they want to accrue?
This is why I struggle with the GOP right now. I don't mind parties being partisan because they believe their vision is necessary and right and they want to win. I'm baffled by a party that doesn't seem to even act in its own best interests.
Look the last 11 months have been about the lame duckification of Obama. His ebbing authority. Now it's Republican extremism and civil war - and how much everyone hates Ted Cruz. I can't work out why they'd do that. How they wanted to get from shutdown/potential default to profit.
It's why I think of Labour in the 80s because that's the only other example I can think of.
I am as baffled as you in regards to the GOP. I dont really identify with them anymore.
I think they've talked themselves into a corner and have no clue how to get out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 08:39:44 PM
I think they've talked themselves into a corner and have no clue how to get out.
Certainly cant disagree with that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 08:39:44 PM
I think they've talked themselves into a corner and have no clue how to get out.
They've tried nothing and they are out of ideas?
Quote from: PDH on October 05, 2013, 08:41:25 PM
They've tried nothing and they are out of ideas?
he he
Quote from: PDH on October 05, 2013, 08:41:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2013, 08:39:44 PM
I think they've talked themselves into a corner and have no clue how to get out.
They've tried nothing and they are out of ideas?
Word
As an aside I read today that current Republican strategy is to roll this into the debt ceiling so they only have to take one bullet, rather than end the shutdown and then fall apart before the debt ceiling.
It's not bothering them, Shiv. The GOPers that are driving this have absolutely nothing to fear in the way of losing their seats in their gerrymandered districts. They are pretty much locks for incumbency.
And besides, they were sent to Washington not only to not govern, but to destroy government and as much as the black guy's presidency as possible. So as far as their constituents are concerned, they're the only legislators getting their jobs done.
GOP party leadership? They don't care who the Speaker is. They won't listen to McCain or the rest of the senior members. They have the backing of the RNC Chairman, that's all they need.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 09:14:25 PM
It's not bothering them, Shiv. The GOPers that are driving this have absolutely nothing to fear in the way of losing their seats in their gerrymandered districts. They are pretty much locks for incumbency.
37 States have Gubernatorial elections by 2014.
I mean Virginia's got an election now and probably the highest level of Federal employees.
A party that wants to win sets their sights higher and wider than the House :mellow:
Those state that have GOP governors and legislatures are more than happy with them. As long as they harp on whore pills, unions and voting restrictions, it's all good in the New Confederacy.
All the news and analysis sources that I take seriously are unanimous in agreement that the republicans are to blame for the shut down. When everybody agrees on something I get concerned about the diversity of my information sources. Is there any serious source of news or analysis that doesn't blame the republicans for the shutdown?
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 10:47:04 PM
All the news and analysis sources that I take seriously are unanimous in agreement that the republicans are to blame for the shut down. When everybody agrees on something I get concerned about the diversity of my information sources. Is there any serious source of news or analysis that doesn't blame the republicans for the shutdown?
Russia Today channel 85. :ph34r:
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 10:47:04 PM
All the news and analysis sources that I take seriously are unanimous in agreement that the republicans are to blame for the shut down. When everybody agrees on something I get concerned about the diversity of my information sources. Is there any serious source of news or analysis that doesn't blame the republicans for the shutdown?
http://www.foxnews.com/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 11:03:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 10:47:04 PM
All the news and analysis sources that I take seriously are unanimous in agreement that the republicans are to blame for the shut down. When everybody agrees on something I get concerned about the diversity of my information sources. Is there any serious source of news or analysis that doesn't blame the republicans for the shutdown?
http://www.foxnews.com/
They're calling it a "government slimdown"? :lol:
Congressional stalemate rings in government slimdown (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/01/partial-shutdown-begins-can-congress-white-house-compromise/)
QuoteWhat the Obama administration is portraying as a "shutdown" of the federal government -- complete with signs posted at the entrances to government buildings, parks and monuments -- is turning out to be more of a "slimdown," as all but non-essential workers reported to their jobs Tuesday.
The biggest impact is expected to be felt for the 800,000 or so federal workers facing furlough. But hundreds of thousands of other workers are reporting for work, and a patchwork of services remains open to the public as lawmakers and the White House continue to battle over a spending package.
Mail will still be delivered, Social Security checks will go out and, thanks to a last-minute bill, the military will continue to get paid.
And, as before, lawmakers will continue to bicker on Capitol Hill.
The debate in Congress Tuesday looked much like it did before the partial government shutdown -- with House Republicans insisting on changes to ObamaCare as part of the budget bill and Democrats refusing.
The House once again endorsed an approach that delays the law's individual mandate while prohibiting lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care.
And the Senate once again rejected it, in a party-line, 54-46 vote Tuesday morning.
"It's time for Republicans to stop obsessing over old battles. I mean, I say to my Republican friends, ObamaCare is over. It's passed, it's the law," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said.
President Obama, speaking in the Rose Garden, urged Republicans to "re-open the government."
Republicans say that's what they're trying to do. Republicans this time tried to urge the Senate to form a so-called conference committee -- a bicameral committee where lawmakers from both chambers would meet to resolve the differences between the warring pieces of legislation.
Though the House has already begun appointing representatives to that committee, the Senate rejected the offer on Tuesday morning. Democrats insist they would not agree to that approach unless and until the House approves a "clean" budget bill.
Despite many facets of the government remaining open, the impact of the partial shutdown will begin to be felt across the country, as other agencies cut back their staff and national parks and other locations close down -- a situation that will put increasing pressure on Congress as the hours and days drag on to reach an agreement.
The debate is as much a political one as it is an effort to figure out a way to reopen the government.
Lawmakers spent the final minutes before midnight trying to assign blame to the other side of the aisle. Republicans are no doubt wary of the blowback their party felt during the Clinton-era shutdown, while Democrats were almost eager to pile the blame on the GOP.
"This is an unnecessary blow to America," Reid said.
House Speaker John Boehner claimed that Republicans are the ones trying to keep the government open but "the Senate has continued to reject our offers."
Ahead of the deadline, the White House budget office ordered agency heads to execute an "orderly shutdown" of their operations due to lack of funds. Americans will begin to feel the effects of a shutdown by Tuesday morning, as national parks close, federal home loan officers scale back their caseload, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers face furlough.
The question now is how long the stand-off will last. Congress is fast-approaching another deadline, in mid-October, to raise the debt limit or face a U.S. government default. Lawmakers presumably want to resolve the status of the government swiftly in order to shift to that debate.
Throughout the day Monday, lawmakers engaged in a day-long bout of legislative hot potato.
The House repeatedly passed different versions of a bill that would fund the government while paring down the federal health care overhaul. Each time, the Senate said no and sent it back.
The rhetoric got more heated as the deadline neared.
"They've lost their minds," Reid said of Republicans, in rejecting the latest proposal.
"Senate Democrats have made it perfectly clear that they'd rather shut down the federal government than accept even the most reasonable changes to ObamaCare," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell countered.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 11:03:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 10:47:04 PM
All the news and analysis sources that I take seriously are unanimous in agreement that the republicans are to blame for the shut down. When everybody agrees on something I get concerned about the diversity of my information sources. Is there any serious source of news or analysis that doesn't blame the republicans for the shutdown?
http://www.foxnews.com/
I try to catch "The Five" every night.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 05, 2013, 08:11:25 PM
Just wondering but has anyone read a decent piece on what the argument was among Republicans to do this? I get the emotions and that side of thing, but from a party perspective what was the upside. Why was this path a good one for Republicans to take?
They're so convinced that Obamacare's going to financially break the country that they're willing to financially break the country to make sure it doesn't happen. The current GOP seems to have a particular problem with being blind to self-fulfilling prophecies.
That said, the Democrats have gotten just as dogmatic, so progress on bills has more or less been reduced to a simple headcount. With congressional majorities split the way they are, that means failure to pass a bill has pretty much become a foregone conclusion.
This is a systemic problem, not one for which either party's more to blame than the other. The conservatives keep trying to put more and more conservative congressmen into office, and the liberals keep trying to put more and more liberal congressmen into office. We pluck the strongest ideologues to campaign against each other and then wonder why they're unable to work with counterparts from the other side.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 05, 2013, 11:19:53 PM
I try to catch "The Five" every night.
I'd wonder why they call it "The Five" when there's really 7 of them, but then I remember it's Fox News.
Petty, Shortsighted Americans Outraged At Legislature That Represents Them Perfectly (http://www.theonion.com/video/petty-shortsighted-americans-outraged-at-legislatu,34099/)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 05, 2013, 11:19:53 PM
I try to catch "The Five" every night.
I'd wonder why they call it "The Five" when there's really 7 of them, but then I remember it's Fox News.
I look at
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.zap2it.com%2Ffrominsidethebox%2Fdana-perino-the-five-crop.jpg&hash=00635de6afacd4d40f144365663773160f083ac3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2Ffox_five_tantaros_120824a-615x345.jpg&hash=075d905dbf8617f480923d8ed704fc279a86ebc0)
(https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2489110155/thefive_2012_kimberly_guilfoyle_2394r2.jpg)
:perv: :perv:
OK, cute, transvestite.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/i-am-obamacare-_n_4046470.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1390648%2Fthumbs%2Fo-I-AM-OBAMACARE-570.jpg&hash=54a84121078080798d501fc0293fa1762ee10c8b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1390684%2Fthumbs%2Fo-I-AM-OBAMACARE-570.jpg&hash=7f7152df5535e2444e07a57288fbe82f26d54ab9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6227%2F6875882380_2af2dfd7df.jpg&hash=3fce983965a653ffb40425a023b5c16f934fd8d4)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1390697%2Fthumbs%2Fo-I-AM-OBAMACARE-570.jpg&hash=c8f2763155287c8a054c1b809afc02b6710e1384)
lol, I like Megyn Kelly and the other League of German Maidens blondes on Fox.
Quote from: Syt on October 05, 2013, 11:39:55 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/i-am-obamacare-_n_4046470.html
Dude, that so not flies here. They'd get more sympathy if they were rape victims.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 05, 2013, 08:22:34 PM
Both of those are emotions and I get that. What I mean is what's the political upside? What benefits do they want to accrue?
This is why I struggle with the GOP right now. I don't mind parties being partisan because they believe their vision is necessary and right and they want to win. I'm baffled by a party that doesn't seem to even act in its own best interests.
Look the last 11 months have been about the lame duckification of Obama. His ebbing authority. Now it's Republican extremism and civil war - and how much everyone hates Ted Cruz. I can't work out why they'd do that. How they wanted to get from shutdown/potential default to profit.
It's why I think of Labour in the 80s because that's the only other example I can think of.
I think that the article I posted here explains it really well. The Tea Party really believes Obama and Obamacare will destroy the country and they want to resist as strongly as possible no matter the political consequences. The GOP leadership doesn't believe this but is terrified that their constituents do and so are to afraid to offer resistance to Tea Party Caucus.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10462.msg649554.html#msg649554
They'll probably going to need an extended time out of power like Labor did in the 80s/early 90s to adjust and change.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frosscalloway.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fexempt_from_obamacare.jpg&hash=6a8545af053f218132ed0c122352af66d154aacf)
Guess they won't have to deal with the death panels.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeffhead.com%2Fobamaposters%2Fdrobama.jpg&hash=6fc33c898cbd690ebe19df423de9e13a181f6385)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 05, 2013, 11:23:38 PM
This is a systemic problem, not one for which either party's more to blame than the other. The conservatives keep trying to put more and more conservative congressmen into office, and the liberals keep trying to put more and more liberal congressmen into office. We pluck the strongest ideologues to campaign against each other and then wonder why they're unable to work with counterparts from the other side.
:bleeding:
This I think highlights the real problem. The unwillingness or inability to pass judgment, and select politicians accordingly. Extremists are not punished, because really, both sides are at fault. We get the government we deserve.
Quote from: Syt on October 05, 2013, 11:39:55 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1390648%2Fthumbs%2Fo-I-AM-OBAMACARE-570.jpg&hash=54a84121078080798d501fc0293fa1762ee10c8b)
Yeah, people getting surgeries, that would really balance the budget. :rolleyes:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 06, 2013, 01:10:48 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeffhead.com%2Fobamaposters%2Fdrobama.jpg&hash=6fc33c898cbd690ebe19df423de9e13a181f6385)
Whiteface is incredibly racist.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 06, 2013, 01:00:36 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frosscalloway.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fexempt_from_obamacare.jpg&hash=6a8545af053f218132ed0c122352af66d154aacf)
Somebody explain to me if I'm wrong.
But... but these people aren't being forced to buy health insurance because they already have it.
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2013, 10:47:04 PM
All the news and analysis sources that I take seriously are unanimous in agreement that the republicans are to blame for the shut down. When everybody agrees on something I get concerned about the diversity of my information sources. Is there any serious source of news or analysis that doesn't blame the republicans for the shutdown?
Stop trying to be funny people, is there any?
I imagine the libertarian magazine "Reason" would be right up your alley.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2013, 05:42:56 AM
I imagine the libertarian magazine "Reason" would be right up your alley.
Nick Gillespie blames both republicans and democrats for the shutdown but also insists that Obama is responsible for fixing it. Reason blames the Republicans too. However, I find Reason calling for the Government to bully congress into being sane not to be within their usual set of values and ideas.
I watch The Five for grumpy Bob Beckel.
Quote from: Viking on October 06, 2013, 05:12:21 AM
Somebody explain to me if I'm wrong.
But... but these people aren't being forced to buy health insurance because they already have it.
This is Elevenb4Five. Logic doesn't enter the discussion.
I especially like the one where he has Obama in whiteface threatening to take the health care away from the Germans, Brits, Canadians, Australians, etc.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 06, 2013, 05:12:21 AM
Somebody explain to me if I'm wrong.
But... but these people aren't being forced to buy health insurance because they already have it.
This is Elevenb4Five. Logic doesn't enter the discussion.
I especially like the one where he has Obama in whiteface threatening to take the health care away from the Germans, Brits, Canadians, Australians, etc.
I'm just used to politicians and activists trying their best to not specifically lie hoping you just make all the wrong assumptions instead. This is straight out not true.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 04, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
Tamas, that's pretty much how Americans - at least those who are looking at the bigger picture - feel, too.
That's certainly how liberals who would like the federal government to take care of all of us for our own good feel. I have not missed the federal government in the least. Some of us lOoking at the big picture believe that a government shut down may help us see how blOated the federal government has become and how little it's missed by 53 per cent of Americans.
It's lovely that it's not affected you. I'm pretty sure that that's not the case for many others.
I've a feeling those who are now effective unemployed don't feel that way. Nor those who are working without pay while their co-workers sit on their hands.
So exactly how have you missed the federal government thus far, nothing abstract, a genuine need unmet?
I would like to see us all enjoy prosperity and a rising tide that could lift all boats. Government spending and programs that make us all more dependent on a shrinking number of tax payers logically can not be the solution.
What an absurd statement.
Quote from: Viking on October 06, 2013, 05:12:21 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 06, 2013, 01:00:36 AM
Somebody explain to me if I'm wrong.
But... but these people aren't being forced to buy health insurance because they already have it.
Down at the bottom of that pic is the source. Logic and reason need not apply.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
So exactly how have you missed the federal government thus far, nothing abstract, a genuine need unmet?
For example:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/10/14/131014taco_talk_talbot?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook
Quote[...]
What the Republican intransigents were willing to deprive of funds, besides the Capitol police, included the following: The Centers for Disease Control, which said that it would have to stop its seasonal flu-prevention program and would "have significantly reduced capacity to respond to outbreak investigations." The Environmental Protection Agency, which would close down almost entirely, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which would stop most of its inspections. The wic program, which provides healthy food supplements for millions of pregnant women, new mothers, and babies, and could run on temporary federal funds only through the end of the month. The Food and Drug Administration, which said it "will be unable to support the majority of its food safety, nutrition, and cosmetics activities," and would have to halt "the majority of the laboratory research necessary to inform public health decision-making." The National Institutes of Health, which announced that it would not be enrolling any new patients in ongoing studies or clinical trials.
[...]
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
So exactly how have you missed the federal government thus far, nothing abstract, a genuine need unmet?
Exactly. We can get rid of every farmer in the US as well, because, four days into a farmer shutdown, we would not be completely out of food (and, even when we run out of food, we can survive for several days without food). Therefor, farmers are completely unnecessary.
Quote from: Viking on October 06, 2013, 07:28:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2013, 05:42:56 AM
I imagine the libertarian magazine "Reason" would be right up your alley.
Nick Gillespie blames both republicans and democrats for the shutdown but also insists that Obama is responsible for fixing it. Reason blames the Republicans too. However, I find Reason calling for the Government to bully congress into being sane not to be within their usual set of values and ideas.
I guess you already read that. You could always go to National Review online, which Hans often took articles from and posted here, or the network of Breitbart sites that Derspeiss introduced me to, but somehow I don't think you'd find them very credible. They tend to be low quality tripe.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
I would like to see us all enjoy prosperity and a rising tide that could lift all boats.
The problem is that analogy doesn't hold up anymore. The result of Republican policies is poverty, disease and death.
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2013, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
I would like to see us all enjoy prosperity and a rising tide that could lift all boats.
The problem is that analogy doesn't hold up anymore. The result of Republican policies is poverty, disease and death.
I used to believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2013, 12:33:44 PM
Exactly. We can get rid of every farmer in the US as well, because, four days into a farmer shutdown, we would not be completely out of food (and, even when we run out of food, we can survive for several days without food). Therefor, farmers are completely unnecessary.
Whoa, farmers. Way to kick him in the Jeffersons.
Thomas Jefferson's pro-farmer stance was what caused grumbler to vote for him in the first place.
Quote from: Kleves on October 06, 2013, 03:27:34 PM
Thomas Jefferson's pro-farmer stance was what caused grumbler to vote for him in the first place.
:rolleyes: Grumbler couldn't vote for Jefferson since he was officially a citizen of Ur.
Quote from: PDH on October 06, 2013, 03:51:06 PM
Quote from: Kleves on October 06, 2013, 03:27:34 PM
Thomas Jefferson's pro-farmer stance was what caused grumbler to vote for him in the first place.
:rolleyes: Grumbler couldn't vote for Jefferson since he was officially a citizen of Ur.
Besides, he was caught up in the XYZ affair at the time.
Quote from: Syt on October 06, 2013, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
So exactly how have you missed the federal government thus far, nothing abstract, a genuine need unmet?
For example:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/10/14/131014taco_talk_talbot?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/10/14/131014taco_talk_talbot?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook)
Quote[...]
What the Republican intransigents were willing to deprive of funds, besides the Capitol police, included the following: The Centers for Disease Control, which said that it would have to stop its seasonal flu-prevention program and would "have significantly reduced capacity to respond to outbreak investigations." The Environmental Protection Agency, which would close down almost entirely, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which would stop most of its inspections. The wic program, which provides healthy food supplements for millions of pregnant women, new mothers, and babies, and could run on temporary federal funds only through the end of the month. The Food and Drug Administration, which said it "will be unable to support the majority of its food safety, nutrition, and cosmetics activities," and would have to halt "the majority of the laboratory research necessary to inform public health decision-making." The National Institutes of Health, which announced that it would not be enrolling any new patients in ongoing studies or clinical trials.
[...]
Somehow I don't think those kind of things bother him.
Age jokes aside, Grumbler's point is valid. It is way too early to declare the services that have stopped to be unnecessary. Their effects aren't immediate, but residual.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 10:43:10 AMI would like to see us all enjoy prosperity and a rising tide that could lift all boats. Government spending and programs that make us all more dependent on a shrinking number of tax payers logically can not be the solution.
What's illogical about it? Walk me through it.
You can have growth with wage stagnation and decline for a majority; you can have tax-and-spend policies even if there's only one taxpayer in the country and he makes thirteen trillion dollars a year.
It's "illogical" because you prefer the tyranny of nature to the benevolence of the state, Pete. It's also, I suggest--maybe a little?--disingenuous.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2013, 04:51:43 PM
What's illogical about it? Walk me through it.
You can have growth with wage stagnation and decline for a majority; you can have tax-and-spend policies even if there's only one taxpayer in the country and he makes thirteen trillion dollars a year.
It's "illogical" because you prefer the tyranny of nature to the benevolence of the state, Pete. It's also, I suggest--maybe a little?--disingenuous.
I agree that it's not illogical. It is, however, prone to internal tensions that only a few states have managed to resolve.
If a majority of the voting population is a net recipient of free money, there is no natural limit to the demand for free money.
As free money becomes more abundant, marginal work will be disincentivized, further increasing demand for free money and further reducing revenue.
Taxable income generated by the golden goose Xtile is not exogeneous, i.e. it is not static; it will decrease in response to increased taxation.
That sounds more like a problem with democracy than high taxation.
In seriousness, obviously the solution is to find a middle, metastable ground.
That should do the trick!
Yah. Three easy steps to homeostasis.
Do we have an Obamacare thread? I've seen some interesting critical articles on it, but I don't think it really fits this thread, even though Obamacare is the reason the GOP is holding the government hostage.
EDIT: Never mind, found one
I thought congress had passed a bill to fund the entire military. I don't know why they send the DA civilian workes home, or wby the commissary is closed. Didn't I post this already?
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2013, 08:49:15 PM
I thought congress had passed a bill to fund the entire military.
Only the uniforms.
Which, now that i think about it, does undercut the "piecemeal bad" argument somewhat.
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2013, 01:23:40 PMThe problem is that analogy doesn't hold up anymore. The result of Republican policies is poverty, disease and death.
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that if you look at all major economic indicators, the Democrats have a way better track record for the US than Republicans these last 5 decades or so.
Quote from: Syt on October 06, 2013, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
So exactly how have you missed the federal government thus far, nothing abstract, a genuine need unmet?
For example:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/10/14/131014taco_talk_talbot?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook
Quote[...]
What the Republican intransigents were willing to deprive of funds, besides the Capitol police, included the following: The Centers for Disease Control, which said that it would have to stop its seasonal flu-prevention program and would "have significantly reduced capacity to respond to outbreak investigations." The Environmental Protection Agency, which would close down almost entirely, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which would stop most of its inspections. The wic program, which provides healthy food supplements for millions of pregnant women, new mothers, and babies, and could run on temporary federal funds only through the end of the month. The Food and Drug Administration, which said it "will be unable to support the majority of its food safety, nutrition, and cosmetics activities," and would have to halt "the majority of the laboratory research necessary to inform public health decision-making." The National Institutes of Health, which announced that it would not be enrolling any new patients in ongoing studies or clinical trials.
[...]
We are supposed to be sad about the closing of OSHA, EPA and FDA?
You wanna eat mad cows?
The FDA gives me half my work. If they didn't approve dangerous drugs, who would?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 06, 2013, 11:07:38 PM
You wanna eat mad cows?
Doubt the FDA being open would stop that.
FDA is a stand-alone agency, isn't it? Food inspectors under Agriculture would be the ones psychoanalyzing livestock.
FDA is part of the DHHS.
Really? What a weird place to stick it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2013, 11:24:26 PM
Really? What a weird place to stick it.
Public health, no?
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2013, 08:49:15 PM
I thought congress had passed a bill to fund the entire military. I don't know why they send the DA civilian workes home, or wby the commissary is closed. Didn't I post this already?
Because they are leverage.
(https://scontent-b-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1384284_10151884854269906_2054764368_n.jpg)
Lame.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2013, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2013, 01:23:40 PMThe problem is that analogy doesn't hold up anymore. The result of Republican policies is poverty, disease and death.
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that if you look at all major economic indicators, the Democrats have a way better track record for the US than Republicans these last 5 decades or so.
I wouldn't go that far. I think the further back you go during that time period, the more it can be debated who had the right ideas. But right now, there's no doubt that the Republicans do not have anything useful to say about economic policy.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2013, 11:00:17 PMWe are supposed to be sad about the closing of OSHA, EPA and FDA?
It's like you looked at China and all its food safety scandals, rampant environmental degradation, fake drugs scandals, and and general lack of consumer safety and thought "great, let's make it like that!"
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 09:19:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2013, 11:00:17 PMWe are supposed to be sad about the closing of OSHA, EPA and FDA?
It's like you looked at China and all it's food safety scandals, rampant environmental degradation, fake drugs scandals, and and general lack of consumer safety and thought "great, let's make it like that!"
Keep in mind his profession.
Nine year old boy gets on flight to Las Vegas from Minneapolis without ticket; TSA blames government shutdown. (http://gawker.com/boy-flies-to-las-vegas-without-ticket-tsa-blames-gover-1441784983)
That's some serious gumption, kid.
:lol: So, technically he just relocated the bag.
QuoteWhat did occur was some serious deviance by the nine-year old: Before boarding a plane, he took a bag from a luggage carousel, and then ordered food at an airport restaurant. He told the server he had to use the bathroom after eating, and then never returned to pay the bill or pick up his stolen bag.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 03:58:20 PM
Nine year old boy gets on flight to Las Vegas from Minneapolis without ticket; TSA blames government shutdown. (http://gawker.com/boy-flies-to-las-vegas-without-ticket-tsa-blames-gover-1441784983)
That's some serious gumption, kid.
How did he get on the plane without a boarding pass?
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2013, 04:59:42 PMHow did he get on the plane without a boarding pass?
The TSA blames the government shutdown.
That makes no sense.
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 03:58:20 PM
Nine year old boy gets on flight to Las Vegas from Minneapolis without ticket; TSA blames government shutdown. (http://gawker.com/boy-flies-to-las-vegas-without-ticket-tsa-blames-gover-1441784983)
That's some serious gumption, kid.
How did he get on the plane without a boarding pass?
I once traveled on the wrong day
the computer system was down, and I didn't check my ticket date and flew on the wrong day. This was before 9/11
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2013, 05:02:30 PM
That makes no sense.
You're right - and on reading the original article it turns out that's not the case. The TSA person mentioned the government shutdown, but didn't say it was the cause, and later the TSA clarified. So... wrong thread. Mea culpa.
Original article here: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/10/06/boy-boards-plane-at-minn-airport-without-ticket/
Quote from: 11B4V on October 07, 2013, 04:02:36 PM
:lol: So, technically he just relocated the bag.
In layman's terms he relocated the bag. In technical terms, he converted it. :nerd:
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 05:00:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2013, 04:59:42 PMHow did he get on the plane without a boarding pass?
The TSA blames the government shutdown.
That doesn't make any sense. That's a failure by the airline, not the TSA.
Quote from: Viking on October 07, 2013, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 03:58:20 PM
Nine year old boy gets on flight to Las Vegas from Minneapolis without ticket; TSA blames government shutdown. (http://gawker.com/boy-flies-to-las-vegas-without-ticket-tsa-blames-gover-1441784983)
That's some serious gumption, kid.
How did he get on the plane without a boarding pass?
I once traveled on the wrong day
the computer system was down, and I didn't check my ticket date and flew on the wrong day. This was before 9/11
And you didn't notice until you got there!? :wacko:
Anarchy Reigns Amid Shutdown. :lol:
QuoteShutdown Turns DC Into Giant Skatepark
(Newser) – At least one group is benefiting from the federal shutdown: skaters. The capital's stone benches and strong railings make for perfect skating obstacles, but are usually off-limits. But with buildings and plazas empty in Washington, DC, no one is around to police them, and the skaters are moving in, reports the Wall Street Journal. The paper observed as pros and amateurs alike spent Thursday and Friday last week grinding and flipping all over Freedom Plaza. A whole crew of pros come from Canada to film a video. A National Park Service officer warns one guy, but the crowds stick around. However, at least one local skater says he doesn't want to see the cops disappear altogether—being chased is part of the experience. "That thrill is always good," he says.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 09:19:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2013, 11:00:17 PMWe are supposed to be sad about the closing of OSHA, EPA and FDA?
It's like you looked at China and all its food safety scandals, rampant environmental degradation, fake drugs scandals, and and general lack of consumer safety and thought "great, let's make it like that!"
But see, over there it's Communism. Here, it's Freedom.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2013, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 09:19:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2013, 11:00:17 PMWe are supposed to be sad about the closing of OSHA, EPA and FDA?
It's like you looked at China and all its food safety scandals, rampant environmental degradation, fake drugs scandals, and and general lack of consumer safety and thought "great, let's make it like that!"
But see, over there it's Communism. Here, it's Freedom.
Aren't we already importing those things?
We import Chinese smog?
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2013, 09:50:04 PMAren't we already importing those things?
You are missing out on like 99% of them due to the robust nature of your regulatory schemes. No diseased pork carcasses floating in by the hundreds to major metropolises, no baby deaths from adulterated milk powder, no villages with 10x to 100x cancer rates due to untracked pollution, no schools collapsing killing the students inside due to substandard building materials used, no chickens dead from bird-flu sold to restaurants and served, no cheap pork died and injected with chemicals so it can be sold as beef, no fake pills with real labels being sold knowingly or not by clinics and pharmacies resulting in illnesses going untreated.
... it's not a pretty thing right now in China with that stuff. Of course, most things are fine and safe enough, but you're still playing a bit of a lottery with worse odds than in a place with effective regulatory schemes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2013, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 07, 2013, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2013, 03:58:20 PM
Nine year old boy gets on flight to Las Vegas from Minneapolis without ticket; TSA blames government shutdown. (http://gawker.com/boy-flies-to-las-vegas-without-ticket-tsa-blames-gover-1441784983)
That's some serious gumption, kid.
How did he get on the plane without a boarding pass?
I once traveled on the wrong day
the computer system was down, and I didn't check my ticket date and flew on the wrong day. This was before 9/11
And you didn't notice until you got there!? :wacko:
I didn't notice till I got to my layover and tried to check in with the computer there. It was embarrassing.
Yikes, so what happened? You got a hotel there for a night?
My cousin & her 3 kids got on the wrong flight back in the early 2000s. After 9/11.
4 people wrong plane. From Miami to Montreal, they actually got on a flight to Detroit.
I'm sure someone got fired after that one.
It's from Slate, so take it as you will, but I thought it was pretty on-point. It actually does a good job of explaining my frustration with the Democratic party over the last few years.
Quotet's easy to forget, but this year began with a nick-of-time congressional compromise. At the 11th hour, with Washington's supply of clichés nearly depleted, the House and Senate approved a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. The Bush tax cuts were extended for households making less than $400,000, a minor disappointment for both parties. The payroll tax holiday ended, also pleasing no one.
But the system worked, sort of, in its doddering way. It worked when 172 House Democrats voted with 85 Republicans, bailing out House Speaker John Boehner, whose "Plan B" Republicans-only plan had been torn apart by House conservatives. It had worked in 2011, when Democrats helped put the Budget Control Act over the top. It worked a few more times this year—for example, when every Democrat joined with a rump of 89 House Republicans to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Democrats would bend when the GOP refused to.
Not anymore. House Democrats, powerless as they are, provided the GOP almost no cover in the early stages of the shutdown fight. Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy declared a "bipartisan vote" for the defunding of Obamacare and asked reporters to "write that down." Reporters judiciously decided not to pretend that two Democratic votes from deep-red districts meant that the GOP had bipartisan support. Few Democrats backed the next round of Republican-proposed continuing resolutions. Only at the end of this week, when the GOP retreated to a plan of poll-tested "mini-CRs" to fund veterans' pensions and treatment for kids with cancer, did dozens of Democrats start to vote with them. Right after they did so, they endorsed their leadership's demand for a "clean CR" to be brought to the floor by force.
The intransigence of Democrats, from Obama on down to red-state senators, has surprised the GOP. They honestly expected a few of the Democrats to crack—after all, four of them are running for re-election in states that voted for Mitt Romney. "If you're a Mark Pryor," said Ted Cruz last week, "if you're a Mary Landrieu, running for re-election in Arkansas and Louisiana, and you start to get 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, calls from your constituents, suddenly, it changes the calculus entirely."
Landrieu and Pryor never buckled. They voted with the rest of the party to amend or table every House bill. So did Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan. So did West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate who's not on the ballot again until 2018 but who's on the record willing to delay the health insurance mandate. "This is about funding the government," Manchin told me after one of his votes this week. "This isn't about social issues."
Why do they stick with Majority Leader Harry Reid—why, when three of them could cast "safe" no votes and Reid could still beat the House bills? Democratic aides say that the red-staters are "scared straight" by the House GOP. They're not getting the calls from home to defund Obamacare. Their home-state papers aren't dogging them, either. They're in no fear of losing an "optics" battle to John Boehner and company.
The intransigence of Democrats, from Obama on down to red-state senators, has surprised the GOP.
Neither are the House Democrats. Neither are progressive organizations—not even labor unions like the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, which loudly demanded changes in the law, got cited by Republicans as proof that the Democratic coalition was imploding, then started showing up on the Hill for solidarity marches with furloughed workers. Sure, dozens of Democrats in competitive seats have now voted for "mini-CRs" that didn't touch Obamacare. Fewer than 10 have voted for any CR that did. Gerrymandering and the 2010 election have hollowed out the old, media-savvy Blue Dogs who used to make public breaks from Rep. Nancy Pelosi. There's a new, near-total refusal to compromise.
"It's based on history," said Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, a former chair of the House Progressive Caucus. "Every time that we get into these situations, whether it was the grand bargain or the last CR or the debt ceiling, at the end of the day it is all the give on the side of Democrats. I think that pattern is well-documented, and all of us know it. People vote for the greater good, to keep government working. Then you come back around, and there's nothing left to give. I think we've reached the tipping point, with Democrats saying, 'If you want to bear the responsibility for the crisis you've created, then you bear it, and we're gonna stand firm.' "
Some Republicans think they turned the tide, or started to, with the mini-CRs. Democrats think that's short sighted. It's easy for the GOP to pass a small bill that "funds our veterans." What happens if the shutdown drags, and voters start hearing about poor families missing out on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families payments or Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency inspectors going off the clock? Is the GOP going to pass a mini-CR for the EPA? For food stamps?
"We've gone from 'defund Obamacare or else' to 'oh, you know, we've got some favorite agencies we want to fund,' " said Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, who represents Washington suburbs and exurbs that used to be competitive for Republicans. "I don't think they're going to be able to frame that with voters. How do they do it? So—for a cheap political ad a year from now, they held the government hostage?"
Democrats don't worry about that. They worry about a "grand bargain" that would ask them to bail out the GOP again and vote for Social Security cuts. But in 2011, conservatives blew up a deal and spared the Democrats that vote. In 2013, conservatives turned the focus to Obamacare, which the party's never going to undo.
"Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things," said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday's GOP bills. "You can't deal with 'em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can't figure out how to admit it." Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn't? "You can't say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn't a Solomonic decision," McDermott said. "So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
Quote"So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
I agree, they should do that or they will continue with the blackmails. This is the same shit which happened to Hungary in the 4 years before 2010 (Orban`s opposition times), as they refused to show even a hint of reasonability. And it ruined the country.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 08, 2013, 05:08:12 AM
Yikes, so what happened? You got a hotel there for a night?
yep
Sure, Rasputin the federal gov shutdown doesn't affect anyone.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/10/shutdown-salmonella/
QuoteLate-breaking news, and I'll update as I find out more: While the government is shut down, with food-safety personnel and disease detectives sent home and forbidden to work, a major foodborne-illness outbreak has begun. This evening, the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the US Department of Agriculture announced that "an estimated 278 illnesses ... reported in 18 states" have been caused by chicken contaminated with Salmonella Heidelberg and possibly produced by the firm Foster Farms.
Quote"Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things," said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday's GOP bills. "You can't deal with 'em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can't figure out how to admit it." Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn't? "You can't say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn't a Solomonic decision," McDermott said. "So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
The Dems should be copying this quote onto every social media site they can. It is the very essence of the issue.
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
Quote"Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things," said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday's GOP bills. "You can't deal with 'em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can't figure out how to admit it." Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn't? "You can't say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn't a Solomonic decision," McDermott said. "So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
The Dems should be copying this quote onto every social media site they can. It is the very essence of the issue.
Yeah, I suppose if they want to demonstrate how utterly classless they are. :)
No, they got it exactly right, and being classy has little to do with it. Republicans, like most bullies, eventually overreached, and put Democrats in position where they have to go against their instincts and stand ground. My only fears is that Republicans would be too stupid to recognize it and fold. History is full of examples of bullies not realizing when the jig was up, to the detriment of everyone.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
Quote"Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things," said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday's GOP bills. "You can't deal with 'em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can't figure out how to admit it." Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn't? "You can't say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn't a Solomonic decision," McDermott said. "So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
The Dems should be copying this quote onto every social media site they can. It is the very essence of the issue.
Yeah, I suppose if they want to demonstrate how utterly classless they are. :)
How can you be classless when your opposing side holds an entire nation ransom to revoke something as cemented in the democratic rules and regulations as anything can potentially be (apart from adding it to the Constitution I guess)?
I am sorry Republicans for your tribe being clearly in the wrong here, but it is, and by joining those who try to mish-mash this or blur the responsibility, you are joining those maintaining this situation and moving it closer to something very bad.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2013, 09:04:56 AM
No, they got it exactly right, and being classy has little to do with it. Republicans, like most bullies, eventually overreached, and put Democrats in position where they have to go against their instincts and stand ground. My only fears is that Republicans would be too stupid to recognize it and fold. History is full of examples of bullies not realizing when the jig was up, to the detriment of everyone.
pretty much
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2013, 07:47:29 AM
QuoteWhy would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn't? "You can't say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn't a Solomonic decision," McDermott said. "So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
I agree with this. If the Repblicans want to change Obamacare they need to start winning elections. I don't think they're going about that at the minute.
As a demonstration the Dem candidate in Virginia has now opened up a decent lead in what was, until now, a relatively close race. I wonder if the shutdown's had any effect on Christie's polling numbers?
Instead they're still like Labour in the 80s - no compromise with the voters.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
Quote"Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things," said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday's GOP bills. "You can't deal with 'em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can't figure out how to admit it." Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn't? "You can't say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn't a Solomonic decision," McDermott said. "So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
The Dems should be copying this quote onto every social media site they can. It is the very essence of the issue.
Yeah, I suppose if they want to demonstrate how utterly classless they are. :)
I don't think it is classless to force the losers to admit they lost. Not even if the losers are your guys.
Quote from: grumbler on October 08, 2013, 09:38:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
Quote"Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things," said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday's GOP bills. "You can't deal with 'em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can't figure out how to admit it." Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn't? "You can't say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn't a Solomonic decision," McDermott said. "So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin' lost."
The Dems should be copying this quote onto every social media site they can. It is the very essence of the issue.
Yeah, I suppose if they want to demonstrate how utterly classless they are. :)
I don't think it is classless to force the losers to admit they lost. Not even if the losers are your guys.
I don't disagree with the sentiment/statement, but do take issue with the tone/language. I don't think it becoming of a congressman to say things like "they fuckin' lost."
It is well in time to start speaking frank and emphasizing that patience is running very thin.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2013, 09:40:48 AM
It is well in time to start speaking frank and emphasizing that patience is running very thin.
Among the Jim McDermotts? Sure.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 09:39:43 AM
I don't disagree with the sentiment/statement, but do take issue with the tone/language. I don't think it becoming of a congressman to say things like "they fuckin' lost."
Disagree. The use of the language is both deliberate and necessary. If he had said "'til the douche-bags realize they fuckin' lost," I would agree with you, but a single well-placed expletive works perfectly in this case.
Quote from: grumbler on October 08, 2013, 09:44:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 09:39:43 AM
I don't disagree with the sentiment/statement, but do take issue with the tone/language. I don't think it becoming of a congressman to say things like "they fuckin' lost."
Disagree. The use of the language is both deliberate and necessary. If he had said "'til the douche-bags realize they fuckin' lost," I would agree with you, but a single well-placed expletive works perfectly in this case.
Whereas I find it inappropriate. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 09:45:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 08, 2013, 09:44:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 09:39:43 AM
I don't disagree with the sentiment/statement, but do take issue with the tone/language. I don't think it becoming of a congressman to say things like "they fuckin' lost."
Disagree. The use of the language is both deliberate and necessary. If he had said "'til the douche-bags realize they fuckin' lost," I would agree with you, but a single well-placed expletive works perfectly in this case.
Whereas I find it inappropriate. :)
:o No shit.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 09:45:36 AM
Whereas I find it inappropriate. :)
Don't worry: any day now, one of your tribemen will say something like that, and your reservations about the word will disappear like magic.
Quote from: grumbler on October 08, 2013, 09:50:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 09:45:36 AM
Whereas I find it inappropriate. :)
Don't worry: any day now, one of your tribemen will say something like that, and your reservations about the word will disappear like magic.
Probably true. I don't think I would take as strong an issue if Hil said something like that. But then, she's a private citizen.
I'm not sure I understand this bit from Obama in his most recent remarks.
QuoteIf Republicans reopen the government, then "I will not eliminate any topic of conversation" in broader negotiations about America's finances, he said.
I understand why Obama & Dems can't negotiate now but at the same time, that's hardly encouraging for Republicans to give up now as they'll have little to no leverage later if they go home with their tails behind their legs.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 02:23:57 PMI understand why Obama & Dems can't negotiate now but at the same time, that's hardly encouraging for Republicans to give up now as they'll have little to no leverage later if they go home with their tails behind their legs.
Some sort of exit strategy from the Republicans would've been good, yeah.
Quote from: Jacob on October 08, 2013, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 02:23:57 PMI understand why Obama & Dems can't negotiate now but at the same time, that's hardly encouraging for Republicans to give up now as they'll have little to no leverage later if they go home with their tails behind their legs.
Some sort of exit strategy from the Republicans would've been good, yeah.
Yeah but then his statement was made knowing full well and good that one didn't exist.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 02:45:31 PMYeah but then his statement was made knowing full well and good that one didn't exist.
Yeah. The Republicans fucked this up good.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 02:45:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 08, 2013, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 02:23:57 PMI understand why Obama & Dems can't negotiate now but at the same time, that's hardly encouraging for Republicans to give up now as they'll have little to no leverage later if they go home with their tails behind their legs.
Some sort of exit strategy from the Republicans would've been good, yeah.
Yeah but then his statement was made knowing full well and good that one didn't exist.
Probably something the Republicans should have thought of before they went down this road.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2013, 03:38:01 PM
Probably something the Republicans should have thought of before they went down this road.
Yeah, I think the right were so convinced they would enjoy the scenery that they didn't think about where the road would lead.
(https://scontent-b-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1374805_522566897839897_1125748206_n.png)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And courtesy of Gov. Jan Brewer's facebook page:
(https://scontent-b-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/993401_10151632039546126_435025397_n.jpg)
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2013, 02:23:57 PM
I'm not sure I understand this bit from Obama in his most recent remarks.
QuoteIf Republicans reopen the government, then "I will not eliminate any topic of conversation" in broader negotiations about America's finances, he said.
I understand why Obama & Dems can't negotiate now but at the same time, that's hardly encouraging for Republicans to give up now as they'll have little to no leverage later if they go home with their tails behind their legs.
Of course.
Quote from: Syt on October 09, 2013, 02:30:07 AM
And courtesy of Gov. Jan Brewer's facebook page:
(https://scontent-b-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/993401_10151632039546126_435025397_n.jpg)
Well obviously this just proves Obama right. A fence cannot even stop a few 90 year olds.
I love the notion that octogenarians are going to gate-crash monuments exactly like illegal immigrants crossing the border. :lol:
They needed a bigger fence, like the one in WWZ movie.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 09, 2013, 10:19:01 AM
They needed a bigger fence, like the one in WWZ movie.
Those fences also didn't work. :contract:
The elderly will just form human pyramids to get into those monuments.
Quote from: Syt on October 09, 2013, 02:26:04 AM
(https://scontent-b-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1374805_522566897839897_1125748206_n.png)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I have to admit the bottom part has always confused me. If the gov't holds the belief that those individuals are here illegally, I'm confused why they aren't rounded up when they agitate for rights. I remember being in California and there were illegal immigrants protesting for driver's licenses. Whole event was being televised and I was like shouldn't they be concerned that the authorities now know who they are? I suppose that some of the protesters are actual citizens but then that's what ID checks are for.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2013, 10:27:25 AM
I have to admit the bottom part has always confused me. If the gov't holds the belief that those individuals are here illegally, I'm confused why they aren't rounded up when they agitate for rights. I remember being in California and there were illegal immigrants protesting for driver's licenses. Whole event was being televised and I was like shouldn't they be concerned that the authorities now know who they are? I suppose that some of the protesters are actual citizens but then that's what ID checks are for.
Good question really. Right to assembly? I suppose if you could round them all up for suspicion of lawbreaking for that I guess you could always just do that if you can come up with a pretext?
Probably something like that :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2013, 10:24:14 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 09, 2013, 10:19:01 AM
They needed a bigger fence, like the one in WWZ movie.
Those fences also didn't work. :contract:
The elderly will just form human pyramids to get into those monuments.
:hmm: You got a point there, hopefully they have those tennis balls on their walkers and they slip and fall.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2013, 10:17:01 AM
I love the notion that octogenarians are going to gate-crash monuments exactly like illegal immigrants crossing the border. :lol:
Funny you should mention that. The gubmint apparently green-lighted an illegal immigrant rally & concert on the mall, while still trying to keep old people out of the WWII Memorial. #washingtonmonumentsyndrome
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/08/government-shutdown-immigration-rally/2942257/
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 10:32:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2013, 10:27:25 AM
I have to admit the bottom part has always confused me. If the gov't holds the belief that those individuals are here illegally, I'm confused why they aren't rounded up when they agitate for rights. I remember being in California and there were illegal immigrants protesting for driver's licenses. Whole event was being televised and I was like shouldn't they be concerned that the authorities now know who they are? I suppose that some of the protesters are actual citizens but then that's what ID checks are for.
Good question really. Right to assembly? I suppose if you could round them all up for suspicion of lawbreaking for that I guess you could always just do that if you can come up with a pretext?
Probably something like that :hmm:
But then why don't they just wait on the perimeter of protest and wait to arrest them? After all, you have at least some of the people stating on video that they are "illegals".
Illegals only get deported if they're caught entering or if they commit crime (a felony I think, not sure) here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 11:17:05 AM
Illegals only get deported if they're caught entering or if they commit crime (a felony I think, not sure) here.
:hmm:
So do we just assume they spontaneously appeared here? Isn't their presence evidence of a crime?
Question: how do we know that the people at the rally are illegal aliens?
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2013, 11:29:11 AM
Question: how do we know that the people at the rally are illegal aliens?
On the anecdote I shared, some of the people interviewed at the rally said that they were. However like I said above, there probably are people that attend that are not -after all Nancy Pelosi will be speaking at this current one - but it seems odd to just give it a carte blanche if you think illegal immigration is a problem.../if you are the gov't and say that illegal immigration is a problem and people shouldn't do it.
Alright now i'm pissed! :mad:
QuoteShutdown means no new beer from craft brewers
Published: October 8, 2013 Updated 9 minutes ago
By CARRIE ANTLFINGER and TODD RICHMOND — The Associated Press
MILWAUKEE — The federal government shutdown could leave America's craft brewers with a serious hangover.
Stores will still offer plenty of suds. But the shutdown has closed an obscure agency that quietly approves new breweries, recipes and labels, which could create huge delays throughout the rapidly growing craft industry, whose customers expect a constant supply of inventive and seasonal beers.
Mike Brenner is trying to open a craft brewery in Milwaukee by December. His application to include a tasting room is now on hold, as are his plans to file paperwork for four labels over the next few weeks. He expects to lose about $8,000 for every month his opening is delayed.
"My dream, this is six years in the making, is to open this brewery," Brenner said. "I've been working so hard, and I find all these great investors. And now I can't get started because people are fighting over this or that in Washington. ... This is something people don't mess around with. Even in a bad economy, people drink beer."
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB, is a little-known arm of the Treasury Department. The agency will continue to process taxes from existing permit holders, but applications for anything new are in limbo.
"One could think of this shutdown as basically stopping business indefinitely for anyone who didn't have certain paperwork in place back in mid-August," said Paul Gatza, director of the Brewers Association, which represents more than 1,900 U.S. breweries.
A woman who answered the phone Oct. 2 at TTB's headquarters in Washington abruptly hung up after explaining that the government was shut down. Assistant Administrator Cheri Mitchell did not respond to telephone or email messages.
The shutdown began Oct. 1 after a group of House Republican lawmakers blocked a budget deal in a last-ditch effort to stop funding for President Barack Obama's health care law.
The closing isn't expected to have much effect on industry giants such as MillerCoors or Anheuser-Busch. They can continue to produce existing products as usual. But the shutdown poses a huge problem for craft brewers, who build their businesses by producing quirky, offbeat flavors and introducing new seasonal beers, sometimes as often as every quarter.
Craft brewers around the country say TTB was taking as long as 75 days to approve applications before the shutdown. Now they're bracing for even longer waits. And tempers are flaring.
Tony Magee, owner of Lagunitas Brewing Co. in Petaluma, Calif., posted messages on his Twitter account this week ripping the shutdown.
"(Expletive) Feds are gonna shut down the already incompetent .Gov while hundreds of small breweries, including us, have labels pending. Nice." That was followed with "Wanna regulate? Perform or get out of the way."
Lagunitas Chief Operating Officer Todd Stevenson called the TTB shutdown a "headache." He said the company was planning to submit an application to package its autumn seasonal Hairy Eyeball in 22-ounce bottles instead of 12-ounce bottles but can't move forward.
"It's just aggravating," Stevenson said. "It is frustrating that government can't do its job. Doing what they're doing now is unprecedented."
Bryan Simpson, a spokesman for New Belgium Brewing in Fort Collins, Colo., said his brewery has three recipes and five new labels awaiting approval. The company is especially worried that the release of its new spring label, Spring Blonde, could get pushed back. More delays might force New Belgium to shell out extra money to speed up the label printing and rush the beer to market, he said.
"Everybody is frustrated in general," Simpson said. "The whole way this has played out has been disappointing for the entire country."
Lakefront Brewery in Milwaukee has applications pending for new packaging of its IBA dark ale and for permission to offer a sour cherry dark lager called John, a brewery employee's own concoction.
The brewery hopes to launch the IBA packaging in November and John in December, but nothing is certain now. If the shutdown causes delays, the brewery will probably have to rush the beers to market, he said.
"If we lose that first month, we lose out on a good chunk of money," brewery spokesman Matt Karjnak said. "Right now, it's only been a week so it's not too bad. Two weeks, three weeks is when we're really going to start sweating here."
Brenner said politicians don't seem to care how much damage they're causing.
"For them it's just another day," he said. "They are still getting paid, but I'm losing $8,000 a month."
Local brewers here have been crowing about this since day 1 of the shutdown. Some of it is a bit exaggerated, with one claiming that he might have to pour out some seasonal beer because people "might not want it" if it comes out too late. Somehow, I doubt that. If it tastes decent enough, then sell it at a discount and it will go fast. People buy seasonal beer out of season all the time.
It's not affecting my favorite brewery at all, since as a more established brewery they've had all their recipes & labels approved for quite a while. Sucks for some of the recent start-ups, but if they were a little less schizophrenic in the first place and focused on establishing a solid core for their beer lineup, they'd be a lot less impacted.
edit: As a side-note, it's silly that beer recipes have to be approved by a federal authority before the beer can be sold. The labels I can understand.
The school district here has been going back and forth with the teachers for a contract. To the point that they've been coming closer and closer to a strike, and they brought in a federal mediator. Of course, now the federal mediator is out of the picture.
The strike is expected to take place next week.
Can't blame the shutdown, specifically, if they go on strike, but it certainly isn't helping the situation.
My cousin & his wife are treating it like a vacation. Hell, I would as well if I knew I'd get back-pay.
Not everyone can do that. Some are stretched very thin right now....
QuoteThe government shutdown, now in its ninth day, has impacted government services and the Americans who rely on them to varying degrees. This week, members of Congress are wincing at the toll their dysfunction is taking on services for veterans and military families.
If the shutdown doesn't end soon, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Department won't be able to ensure that checks go out on Nov. 1 for 5.18 million beneficiaries, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki told House Veterans' Affairs Committee. That amounts to $6.25 billion in payments that VA beneficiaries are expecting.
Already the VA has furloughed more than 7,800 employees, Shinseki, half of whom are veterans. While the VA has in the last six months made progress on reducing its disability claims backlog, the shutdown has reversed that progress, with the number of backlogged claims increasing by 2,000 since Oct. 1.
"We've lost ground we fought hard to take," said Shinseki, who at multiple points in his testimony to Congress used military analogies to explain the challenges his department is facing.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 10:34:13 AM
Funny you should mention that. The gubmint apparently green-lighted an illegal immigrant rally & concert on the mall, while still trying to keep old people out of the WWII Memorial. #washingtonmonumentsyndrome
Yeah, apparently the right of old people to enter memorials is equal to the right to free speech. Seventy-seventh amendment or something.
Yeah. I'm on the Post 9/11 GI Bill and I'm not expecting any payments come November 1. Luckily I've been a good boy and have significant savings stashed away. :smarty:
Feel bad for those veterans who live hand-to-mouth and who depend on that monthly living stipend to make ends meet though.
I don't understand why the Administration doesn't just declare every worker essential, and have them go back to work (even though there isn't any money to pay them). The Republicans would be left in the position of blocking pay to people "just doin' their jobs." No shutdown, no drama, no trauma, just a bunch of Congressional assholes that won't do their fucking jobs.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 02:15:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 10:34:13 AM
Funny you should mention that. The gubmint apparently green-lighted an illegal immigrant rally & concert on the mall, while still trying to keep old people out of the WWII Memorial. #washingtonmonumentsyndrome
Yeah, apparently the right of old people to enter memorials is equal to the right to free speech. Seventy-seventh amendment or something.
I'm not sure I understand the "free speech" angle. Like there's nowhere else for them to gather & demand stuff?
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 02:19:09 PM
I don't understand why the Administration doesn't just declare every worker essential, and have them go back to work (even though there isn't any money to pay them). The Republicans would be left in the position of blocking pay to people "just doin' their jobs." No shutdown, no drama, no trauma, just a bunch of Congressional assholes that won't do their fucking jobs.
Interesting question. If your going to be paid for sitting at home, get your ass into work. The Govmint cant be saving money (or whatever) if they still have to pay these people. I dont get the point. Basically the taxpayers foot the bill for a sweet boondoggle. It is not a paid vacation either. You use leave (from your leave balance) when you do that.
These people are not going to be charged leave. They were/are being paid to fuck-off at home. They may not be paid till this shits resolved, but who cares, it's still the taxpayer footing the bill for people fucking off at home.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 02:19:09 PM
I don't understand why the Administration doesn't just declare every worker essential, and have them go back to work (even though there isn't any money to pay them). The Republicans would be left in the position of blocking pay to people "just doin' their jobs." No shutdown, no drama, no trauma, just a bunch of Congressional assholes that won't do their fucking jobs.
I assume the same definition and jurisprudence is being used for that determination as is used for determining essential workers during a public sector strike. If governments could simply declare all public employees to be essential it would make strikes easier to manage and most importantly Yi would continually have to explain he doesnt have a pickle in his pants.
Looks like CC's off his meds again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2013, 02:34:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 02:19:09 PM
I don't understand why the Administration doesn't just declare every worker essential, and have them go back to work (even though there isn't any money to pay them). The Republicans would be left in the position of blocking pay to people "just doin' their jobs." No shutdown, no drama, no trauma, just a bunch of Congressional assholes that won't do their fucking jobs.
I assume the same definition and jurisprudence is being used for that determination as is used for determining essential workers during a public sector strike. If governments could simply declare all public employees to be essential it would make strikes easier to manage and most importantly Yi would continually have to explain he doesnt have a pickle in his pants.
Strike, civil service? I know there's a no-strike clause or something to that effect in the current CBA.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2013, 10:27:25 AM
I have to admit the bottom part has always confused me. If the gov't holds the belief that those individuals are here illegally, I'm confused why they aren't rounded up when they agitate for rights. I remember being in California and there were illegal immigrants protesting for driver's licenses. Whole event was being televised and I was like shouldn't they be concerned that the authorities now know who they are? I suppose that some of the protesters are actual citizens but then that's what ID checks are for.
LOL, as funny as that would be, a sweep and clear operation on the National Mall just wouldn't look good. It would look awesome, but not good. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2013, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2013, 10:27:25 AM
I have to admit the bottom part has always confused me. If the gov't holds the belief that those individuals are here illegally, I'm confused why they aren't rounded up when they agitate for rights. I remember being in California and there were illegal immigrants protesting for driver's licenses. Whole event was being televised and I was like shouldn't they be concerned that the authorities now know who they are? I suppose that some of the protesters are actual citizens but then that's what ID checks are for.
LOL, as funny as that would be, a sweep and clear operation on the National Mall just wouldn't look good. It would look awesome, but not good. :lol:
Sure but that isn't the only location that these types of events take place. :P
Anyway, I'm not saying I want that to occur! ;)
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:21:45 PM
I'm not sure I understand the "free speech" angle. Like there's nowhere else for them to gather & demand stuff?
I don't understand the "nowhere else" angle. Like there are only a few designated areas where free speech can be practiced?
Quote from: 11B4V on October 09, 2013, 02:27:49 PM
Interesting question. If your going to be paid for sitting at home, get your ass into work. The Govmint cant be saving money (or whatever) if they still have to pay these people. I dont get the point. Basically the taxpayers foot the bill for a sweet boondoggle. It is not a paid vacation either. You use leave (from your leave balance) when you do that.
These people are not going to be charged leave. They were/are being paid to fuck-off at home. They may not be paid till this shits resolved, but who cares, it's still the taxpayer footing the bill for people fucking off at home.
Exactly. Bringing them back would simply highlight how stupid it was to send them home (and then promise to pay them anyway, in a unanimous vote) to begin with. Hostage-takers look ridiculous if the hostages just go about their lives, but wear a sign saying "hostage" so nobody forgets that the hostage-takers exist.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 04:02:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:21:45 PM
I'm not sure I understand the "free speech" angle. Like there's nowhere else for them to gather & demand stuff?
I don't understand the "nowhere else" angle. Like there are only a few designated areas where free speech can be practiced?
It National Park Service locations are closed for everyone else, they shouldn't be open for one specific group. Free speech has nothing to do with it.
I'm pretty sure that illegal rally wasn't during the shut down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 05:27:09 PM
I'm pretty sure that illegal rally wasn't during the shut down.
It happened yesterday.
Quote from: dps on October 09, 2013, 05:24:25 PM
It National Park Service locations are closed for everyone else, they shouldn't be open for one specific group. Free speech has nothing to do with it.
That's fair providing another venue can be found.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 05:45:48 PM
It happened yesterday.
No shit. :lol:
Heard on CNN that DC's rep, Eleanor Holmes Norton, made an impassioned plea to Senate Democrats to pass the House CR funding DC.
Quote from: dps on October 09, 2013, 05:24:25 PM
It National Park Service locations are closed for everyone else, they shouldn't be open for one specific group. Free speech has nothing to do with it.
The Mall isn't closed to anyone. It
can't be closed to anyone. It's just a big (really big) field of grass, with no enclosure around it.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 06:14:46 PM
Quote from: dps on October 09, 2013, 05:24:25 PM
It National Park Service locations are closed for everyone else, they shouldn't be open for one specific group. Free speech has nothing to do with it.
The Mall isn't closed to anyone. It can't be closed to anyone. It's just a big (really big) field of grass, with no enclosure around it.
They could set up, say, temporary barriers around it.
Here's a shocker: Republican who tries to make government work, treats black people with respect and appeals to the electorate polls well :o
QuoteThe Only Hope For The GOP Is To Be More Like Chris Christie
JOSH BARRO OCT. 9, 2013, 6:38 PM 382 2
A lot of people are talking today about this ugly poll chart for Republicans: Gallup found that just 28% of Americans have a favorable view of the Republican Party, down 10 points from last month and the lowest level since Gallup started asking the question in 1992.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic5.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F5255ba2d6bb3f7bd488b4570-550-%2Fmmj6rr5b6kem323wnfrlva.png&hash=347e2f079b839d004396a854b892e02e9dcf1baa)
But here's another poll chart from yesterday that shows the party isn't doomed. Its candidates can be wildly popular when they don't behave like morons bent on destruction of the economy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F5255ceefecad040f728b4567-639-359%2Fchristie%2520buono.png&hash=b4793579018ff1e0bd60c7431c2a23be1be54d9a)
That chart is from the Fairleigh Dickinson University Public Mind poll, and it shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) leading his Democratic challenger by 33 points.
After Superstorm Sandy hit last October, Christie's poll numbers soared because the public liked his handling of the storm. Many people thought his numbers would fade back to "normal" as time passed. That hasn't happened yet; he's poised for a blowout win, even as the national Republican brand is in the toilet.
Christie's path to sustained popularity and massive electoral success isn't complicated.
He stands up for conservative principles when the electorate shares them. For example, he capped property taxes (New Jersey has the country's highest) and he implemented reforms to bring public employee benefits more in line with the private sector, saving money and helping local governments deliver services better.
But when conservatives want Christie to do things that would anger his electorate, like rejecting the Medicaid expansion or snubbing the president in the aftermath of a hurricane, he refuses.
This makes him popular for two reasons. One, it means he tends to take popular policy stances. Two, he shows the electorate that he cares first about them, not his political party.
Christie's pragmatism doesn't just show up in policy; you can also see it in his style. He works openly and enthusiastically with Democrats. His fights with Democratic legislative leaders have often been publicly acrimonious, but they have a lot of important joint legislative accomplishments, including that property tax cap and employee benefit reforms.
Compare that to Washington where, under conservative pressure, House Speaker John Boehner swore off one-on-one negotiations with President Obama earlier this year.
Christie's openness to Democrats has created openness to him. Dozens of local Democratic officials have endorsed him for re-election. Many polls show him drawing about a third of the black vote, an unheard of level for a Republican candidate.
The latest Fairleigh Dickinson poll shows him ahead by 8 points among non-white voters. Where else on this planet do Republican candidates win among non-whites?
I spoke with Michael Blunt, a black Democrat who has endorsed Christie. Blunt serves as mayor of Chesilhurst, a middle-class suburb of Philadelphia, which is about 50% black and gave 82% of its votes to Barack Obama in 2012.
Blunt had a simple explanation for how Christie has made inroads with black voters: "He talks to them. He makes them feel comfortable."
Blunt said black voters particularly appreciated how closely and warmly Christie worked with Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, even though he knew he would take heat from conservatives for doing so. "In the heart of a presidential campaign, he let the people of the state of New Jersey know where he stood."
Republicans are worried about how to appeal to voters in a country that is decreasingly white. Christie has shown how much credibility Republicans can gain with black voters simply by showing respect to the president, even while disagreeing with him on a broad swath of policy issues.
This shouldn't be hard, but for most Republican politicians, it is. Much of the party's energy today is based on animus toward the man who happens to be the first black president. Christie is one of the few Republican politicians who understands how damaging that has been to the party's brand.
Christie's broad popularity hasn't translated into a base problem within New Jersey. Republicans consistently give him approval ratings of 90% or higher. He's made a lot of the right enemies, like teachers' unions, and unlike Republicans in the House of Representatives, he has real conservative policy accomplishments to brag about.
Christie's likely big win next month, when contrasted against Ken Cuccinelli's likely loss in the Virginia governor's race and the ongoing massive unpopularity of Republicans in Congress, should send Republicans a message about the direction they need to take the party in. The question is when they will start to listen.
Who knew that there was an alternative to nihilist counter-revolution? :mellow:
DG's Christie haterade in 3,2,1.......
Because GOP candidates always treat blacks with disrespect :mellow:
Christie is an awesome dude in the context of New Jersey politics. But he'd need to build up some GOP street cred to get through the primaries. As a Republican myself, the shine came off him not so much when he took that romantic beach walk with Obama as when he gave that uninspiring convention keynote in which he mostly talked about himself.
Cannot wait :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 06:58:21 PM
Because GOP candidates always treat blacks with disrespect :mellow:
As props would be my view.
QuoteChristie is an awesome dude in the context of New Jersey politics. But he'd need to build up some GOP street cred to get through the primaries.
I've no doubt you're right but that's a disgrace. He's a conservative who has actually accomplished things. He has laws that have passed that have advanced the conservative agenda, built up the Republican party in New Jersey and delivered to his voters. Despite that he's got less conservative bona fides than an elected media personality like Ted Cruz.
It may be a symptom of the conservative bubble - which isn't unlike the left-wing bubble in this country - but it's a shame.
QuoteAs a Republican myself, the shine came off him not so much when he took that romantic beach walk with Obama as when he gave that uninspiring convention keynote in which he mostly talked about himself.
If you thought that was uninspiring you should've heard the one about Romney :P
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 09, 2013, 02:27:49 PM
Interesting question. If your going to be paid for sitting at home, get your ass into work. The Govmint cant be saving money (or whatever) if they still have to pay these people. I dont get the point. Basically the taxpayers foot the bill for a sweet boondoggle. It is not a paid vacation either. You use leave (from your leave balance) when you do that.
These people are not going to be charged leave. They were/are being paid to fuck-off at home. They may not be paid till this shits resolved, but who cares, it's still the taxpayer footing the bill for people fucking off at home.
Exactly. Bringing them back would simply highlight how stupid it was to send them home (and then promise to pay them anyway, in a unanimous vote) to begin with. Hostage-takers look ridiculous if the hostages just go about their lives, but wear a sign saying "hostage" so nobody forgets that the hostage-takers exist.
Clearly he is a RINO.
If you are not full-on, Tea Party crazy, you are a RINO.
Just like Dems that are Blue Dogs aren't really Dems at all.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2013, 06:54:10 PM
DG's Christie haterade in 3,2,1.......
:huh: I don't buy his shtick, and I think that he's a liar and an asshole, but I don't find him particularly loathsome as a politician.
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2013, 07:03:47 PM
Clearly he is a RINO.
If you are not full-on, Tea Party crazy, you are a RINO.
Just like Dems that are Blue Dogs aren't really Dems at all.
We've had those debates countless of times before, but party loyalty is not an unqualified bad. Only too much or too little is bad. I know it's hard to see why we need to have parties right now, given a low-level civil war in progress in our country, but they do have an important function.
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2013, 07:03:47 PM
Clearly he is a RINO.
I've never liked how that term has been so over-used. I think the only time I've used that term was on Lincoln Chafee. And shock, shock he left the party and eventually became a Democrat. Good riddance to that fucker.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 07:15:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2013, 07:03:47 PM
Clearly he is a RINO.
If you are not full-on, Tea Party crazy, you are a RINO.
Just like Dems that are Blue Dogs aren't really Dems at all.
We've had those debates countless of times before, but party loyalty is not an unqualified bad. Only too much or too little is bad. I know it's hard to see why we need to have parties right now, given a low-level civil war in progress in our country, but they do have an important function.
The problem is that you defined "too little" as "any amount that does not result in people in my party voting against what I think they ought to oppose, or voting against what I think they should support".
And no, that is most certainly NOT "too little" when it comes to a decent chunk of the Dem party standing up against the Tea Party equivalent. Lucky for us moderates, that equivalent in the Dem party was very weakened by the demands of people like you (I am exaggerating - I don't think you are nearly as balls out crazy as the Tea Party wing of the Republicans) that they roll over to the radicals, and in fact the moderates won control (and then the Presidency and control of government).
Sadly, the Republicans went the opposite way, so now there is only one sane choice in US politics anymore.
On the other hand, it does kind of vindicate my stance on the importance of moderates, and the importance of the even not-so-moderates (but not balls out crazy) understanding that if the moderates are balking, it likely means you are trying to push something that most Americans are going to not be happy with.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2013, 06:54:10 PM
DG's Christie haterade in 3,2,1.......
:huh: I don't buy his shtick, and I think that he's a liar and an asshole, but I don't find him particularly loathsome as a politician.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2013, 07:03:47 PM
Clearly he is a RINO.
If you are not full-on, Tea Party crazy, you are a RINO.
Just like Dems that are Blue Dogs aren't really Dems at all.
If Democrats were as disciplined as the GOP, the state would have withered away by now.
Just what important function to parties perform?
It's a label. Labels are important.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2013, 07:37:41 PM
Just what important function to parties perform?
Organisation, coherence and choice. At a very basic level they're a symptom of thriving civil society.
Choice in what? Organization at this point seems to have won out over competence at making and executing policy or even vision. Local elections are good only to gerrymander teh shit out of Federal districts, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2013, 07:30:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 07:15:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2013, 07:03:47 PM
Clearly he is a RINO.
If you are not full-on, Tea Party crazy, you are a RINO.
Just like Dems that are Blue Dogs aren't really Dems at all.
We've had those debates countless of times before, but party loyalty is not an unqualified bad. Only too much or too little is bad. I know it's hard to see why we need to have parties right now, given a low-level civil war in progress in our country, but they do have an important function.
The problem is that you defined "too little" as "any amount that does not result in people in my party voting against what I think they ought to oppose, or voting against what I think they should support".
And no, that is most certainly NOT "too little" when it comes to a decent chunk of the Dem party standing up against the Tea Party equivalent. Lucky for us moderates, that equivalent in the Dem party was very weakened by the demands of people like you (I am exaggerating - I don't think you are nearly as balls out crazy as the Tea Party wing of the Republicans) that they roll over to the radicals, and in fact the moderates won control (and then the Presidency and control of government).
Sadly, the Republicans went the opposite way, so now there is only one sane choice in US politics anymore.
On the other hand, it does kind of vindicate my stance on the importance of moderates, and the importance of the even not-so-moderates (but not balls out crazy) understanding that if the moderates are balking, it likely means you are trying to push something that most Americans are going to not be happy with.
You weren't kidding when you said you were exaggerating.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2013, 07:37:41 PM
Just what important function to parties perform?
The same function that alliances serve in geopolitics. It's a union of people that for the most part share the principles and goals, organized to further them more effectively. That analogy also serves to show why too much or too little loyalty is a bad thing. You don't want all of NATO to mobilize any time some shitty country on the periphery launches an ill-advised attack on another shitty country on the periphery. However, you also don't want half of NATO to join Russia if it attacks Germany, because then you don't really have an alliance at all.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2013, 07:45:51 PM
Choice in what?
For the electorate. Vote Labour for this manifesto, vote Tory for this manifesto, vote Lib Dem for this palimpsest of lunacy.
QuoteOrganization at this point seems to have won out over competence at making and executing policy or even vision. Local elections are good only to gerrymander teh shit out of Federal districts, etc.
I don't know what you mean about organisation.
The problem with the last bit is the system not the parties.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2013, 07:37:41 PM
Just what important function to parties perform?
In the US? To enable each side of politics to arrange competitive elections in a first past the post system.
In the rest of the world? To develop advocate and implement policies.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
In the rest of the world? To develop advocate and implement policies.
And to send kids to political summer camps :D
That one still perplexes me a bit.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
In the rest of the world? To develop advocate and implement policies.
And to send kids to political summer camps :D
That one still perplexes me a bit.
Think of them like the religious summer camps that exist in the US.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
In the rest of the world? To develop advocate and implement policies.
And to send kids to political summer camps :D
That one still perplexes me a bit.
It's part of the local culture. Part of a long tradition of creating alternatives to politically motivated recreational activities from the other side. This particular camp is part of a nearly 80+ year old tradition which was a response to church run summer camps that did indoctrinate religion and later fascist style summer camps that did the same. The summer camp aspect of this has been lost for years. This is a summer camp which has morphed over time into being the annual convention of the labour party youth organization. Plus, it's not really a summer camp in the american sense. About 250 people camp out and socialize while each afternoon there is some discussion and/or workshop related to politics and in the evening a prominent politician comes and talks to the kids and after that they get drunk and have sex in the bushes.
Basically this is part of recruiting the next generation of politicians, not indoctrinating the sheeple.
It looks like word is Boehner is going to the White House this evening with a six week increase of the debt ceiling with no conditions attached. No mention on a CR. I assumed a short-term "clean" bill was the only real possible outcome here. The President had drawn too deep a line on "no negotiations during the shutdown/threat of default", and the Republicans obviously have no ability to even get the President to negotiate if they funded government for a year or something like that. So short term legislation was really the only outcome I could see that would work for both sides. It'll be interesting to see if a negotiation actually happens during the window, or if we're just shut down again in six weeks.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2013, 09:09:38 AM
It looks like word is Boehner is going to the White House this evening with a six week increase of the debt ceiling with no conditions attached. No mention on a CR. I assumed a short-term "clean" bill was the only real possible outcome here. The President had drawn too deep a line on "no negotiations during the shutdown/threat of default", and the Republicans obviously have no ability to even get the President to negotiate if they funded government for a year or something like that. So short term legislation was really the only outcome I could see that would work for both sides. It'll be interesting to see if a negotiation actually happens during the window, or if we're just shut down again in six weeks.
If Boehner has grown the balls to challenge the 42-or-so wingnuts in his party holding the country to hostage, then that's actually much better news than anything actually in the bills. The tea party types have no real chance to return the country to the 1900s, so they should be discouraged from trying, and instead be encouraged to work towards compromise, like the far left apparently (MoveOn ShutDown Occupy, etc) has.
They'll keep the crisis going. Makes better play for their media outlets.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2013, 09:09:38 AM
It'll be interesting to see if a negotiation actually happens during the window, or if we're just shut down again in six weeks.
Bet you answered your own question there.
QuoteNBC/WSJ poll: Shutdown debate damages GOP
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
The Republican Party has been badly damaged in the ongoing government shutdown and debt limit standoff, with a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding that a majority of Americans blame the GOP for the shutdown, and with the party's popularity declining to its lowest level.
By a 22-point margin (53 percent to 31 percent), the public blames the Republican Party more for the shutdown than President Barack Obama – a wider margin of blame for the GOP than the party received during the poll during the last shutdown in 1995-96.
Just 24 percent of respondents have a favorable opinion about the GOP, and only 21 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party, which are both at all-time lows in the history of poll.
And one year until next fall's midterm elections, American voters prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress to a Republican-controlled one by eight percentage points (47 percent to 39 percent), up from the Democrats' three-point advantage last month (46 percent to 43 percent).
What's more, Obama's political standing has remained relatively stable since the shutdown, with his approval rating ticking up two points since last month, and with the Democratic Party's favorability rating declining just three points (from 42 percent to 39 percent).
"If it were not so bad for the country, the results could almost make a Democrat smile," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.
"These numbers lead to one inescapable conclusion: The Republicans are not tone deaf; they are stone deaf."
A 'boomerang' effect for the GOP
Yet what is perhaps even more worrisome for the GOP is the "boomerang" effect: As the party has used the shutdown and fiscal fight to campaign against the nation's health-care law and for limited government, the poll shows those efforts have backfired.
For one thing, the health-care law has become more popular since the shutdown began. Thirty-eight percent see the Affordable Care Act (or "Obamacare") as a good idea, versus 43 percent who see it as a bad idea – up from 31 percent good idea, 44 percent bad idea last month.
In addition, 50 percent say they oppose totally eliminating funding for the law, even if it that means a partial shutdown of the government. That's up from 46 percent who said they opposed that move in a Sept. 2013 CNBC poll.
And by a 52-percent-to-44 percent difference, respondents believe the government should do more to solve problems. Back in June, the public was split, 48 percent to 48 percent, on whether the government should do more or less.
Republicans and Democrats are debating a possible short term debt extension, but it's uncertain what each side would have to give. NBC's Mark Murray discusses.
"That is an ideological boomerang," says McInturff, the GOP pollster. "As the debate has been going on, if there is a break, there is a break against the Republican position."
Obama's approval rating ticks up to 47 percent
While the shutdown has wounded the Republican Party, Obama's overall political standing remains stable in the poll.
Forty-seven percent of Americans approve of his job performance, which is actually up two points from last month (though that's within the survey's margin of error).
That's compared with just 24 percent who approve of congressional Republicans, and 36 percent who approve of congressional Democrats.
Obama – with a 47 percent favorable, 41 percent unfavorable rating – also is the most popular political figure or institution in the poll, surpassing the Democratic Party (39 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable); Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (14 percent favorable/28 percent unfavorable); Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (18 percent favorable/32 percent unfavorable); and House Speaker John Boehner (17 percent favorable/42 percent unfavorable).
At the bottom of the list are the Tea Party (21 percent favorable/47 percent unfavorable) and the Republican Party (24 percent favorable/53 percent unfavorable) – their lowest favorable numbers in the history of the poll.
And 46 percent of respondents say the president, during this budget standoff, has been a strong leader and is standing up for what he believes in, versus 51 percent who believe he's putting his own political agenda ahead of what's good for the country.
By comparison, a whopping 70 percent say congressional Republicans are putting politics first.
"Obama comes into the fight in as good of shape as he entered it," says Hart, the Democratic pollster.
But there is one silver lining for Republicans: By a 43-percent-to-40 percent margin, the public disagrees with Obama's position that he will not negotiate with the Republicans until they reopen government and raise the debt ceiling.
Economic confidence drops like a rock
Beyond the politics, the poll finds that the government shutdown and the debate over raising the debt ceiling have made Americans more pessimistic about the country's direction and economy.
Just 14 percent believe the nation is headed in the right direction – a 16-point drop from last month. In fact, the last time it reached this level in the NBC/WSJ poll was during the 2008 financial crisis.
In addition, only 17 percent think the U.S. economy will improve in the next 12 months, which is down 10 points from September.
And 63 percent say the budget negotiations between Obama and congressional Republicans have made them less confident about the economy.
"All you can say is – what a waste," Hart says about the government shutdown and fiscal standoff.
The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Oct. 7-9 of 800 adults (including 240 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.5 percentage points.
Who'd have guessed. Madness :blink:
They don't care, Shiv.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2013, 09:36:52 PM
They don't care, Shiv.
If they lose seats in the off election they'll care, but it'll be too late by then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2013, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2013, 09:36:52 PM
They don't care, Shiv.
If they lose seats in the off election they'll care, but it'll be too late by then.
These guys can't lose their seats, and they can't be bothered to care about their fellow party members that could. They're in such hardcoded gerrymandered districts, they're practically invincible.
I'd say the only alternative is to wait for the 2010 census and see what redistricting can bring then, but it'll only mean more hardcoded districts.
I should have guessed. It's all been a high-stakes game of intellectual chess. By feigning pussitude during the first five years of his presidency, only to regain a spine at the last moment, Obama has destroyed the Republican Party for all time. It's like Cannae, or The Usual Suspects, or something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2013, 10:53:07 PM
These guys can't lose their seats, and they can't be bothered to care about their fellow party members that could. They're in such hardcoded gerrymandered districts, they're practically invincible.
Sure, but if the Dems get a majority the Hastert rule goes by the wayside.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2013, 10:53:07 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2013, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2013, 09:36:52 PM
They don't care, Shiv.
If they lose seats in the off election they'll care, but it'll be too late by then.
These guys can't lose their seats, and they can't be bothered to care about their fellow party members that could. They're in such hardcoded gerrymandered districts, they're practically invincible.
I'd say the only alternative is to wait for the 2010 census and see what redistricting can bring then, but it'll only mean more hardcoded districts.
If the difference in national vote is a full 8% (a bit unlikely) they will lose some seats.
2010 census was already factored in. You mean the 2020?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2013, 10:54:51 PM
Obama has destroyed the Republican Party for all time.
I'll bet you a million dollars that's not true.
OK, he has destroyed the Republican Party (or permitted them to destroy themselves) as an organized force for evil for the next decade.
But in a way, I think I'm right, despite my hyperbole: when the Republican Party finally reconstitutes, it will be a very different beast, one less retarded.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2013, 10:59:07 PM
2010 census was already factored in. You mean the 2020?
Yeah, that one.
http://govuptime.com/
woa, wait, 21% of Americans think positively of the Tea Party? That`s more support than the Hungarian neo-nazis have. :huh:
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 04:37:57 AM
woa, wait, 21% of Americans think positively of the Tea Party? That`s more support than the Hungarian neo-nazis have. :huh:
Tea Party aren't neo-nazis, though. Mostly, they are old people.
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2013, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2013, 09:09:38 AM
It looks like word is Boehner is going to the White House this evening with a six week increase of the debt ceiling with no conditions attached. No mention on a CR. I assumed a short-term "clean" bill was the only real possible outcome here. The President had drawn too deep a line on "no negotiations during the shutdown/threat of default", and the Republicans obviously have no ability to even get the President to negotiate if they funded government for a year or something like that. So short term legislation was really the only outcome I could see that would work for both sides. It'll be interesting to see if a negotiation actually happens during the window, or if we're just shut down again in six weeks.
If Boehner has grown the balls to challenge the 42-or-so wingnuts in his party holding the country to hostage, then that's actually much better news than anything actually in the bills. The tea party types have no real chance to return the country to the 1900s, so they should be discouraged from trying, and instead be encouraged to work towards compromise, like the far left apparently (MoveOn ShutDown Occupy, etc) has.
See unlike the Navy or a private school, you can't just order people to do things in the House. If a group of congressman really dig in their heels, you really can't make them do anything.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 04:37:57 AM
woa, wait, 21% of Americans think positively of the Tea Party? That`s more support than the Hungarian neo-nazis have. :huh:
You've been listening to CDM too much.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2013, 04:53:00 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 04:37:57 AM
woa, wait, 21% of Americans think positively of the Tea Party? That`s more support than the Hungarian neo-nazis have. :huh:
You've been listening to CDM too much.
I am sorry but apart from the European far right being more socialist, I fail to see the difference between them and the TP. They are your far right. And 5th of your population thinks they are cool. Deal with it.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 05:04:42 AM
I am sorry but apart from the European far right being more socialist, I fail to see the difference between them and the TP. They are your far right. And 5th of your population thinks they are cool. Deal with it.
So except for the European far right being more (trait that is directly opposite of Tea Party's guiding principle), you fail to see the difference? That's funny.
Only idiots would describe the Tea Party as neo-Nazis. I assume that's not true for the European parties you've described as neo-Nazis. So there's another difference.
Besides, if the government's not running, how are they gonna get people into the camps?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2013, 05:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 05:04:42 AM
I am sorry but apart from the European far right being more socialist, I fail to see the difference between them and the TP. They are your far right. And 5th of your population thinks they are cool. Deal with it.
So except for the European far right being more (trait that is directly opposite of Tea Party's guiding principle), you fail to see the difference? That's funny.
Only idiots would describe the Tea Party as neo-Nazis. I assume that's not true for the European parties you've described as neo-Nazis. So there's another difference.
Besides, if the government's not running, how are they gonna get people into the camps?
They are intolerant, radical representatives of the right-sided values of their country. How is that not far-right, the mind boggles.
I didn't say they aren't "far right". I said they're different from your far right. And honestly throwing tantrums about tax money going to subsidize health care isn't a particularly scary form of extremism.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2013, 05:36:10 AM
I didn't say they aren't "far right". I said they're different from your far right. And honestly throwing tantrums about tax money going to subsidize health care isn't a particularly scary form of extremism.
Yeah they haven`t done anything stupid, scary, or controversial before this.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 05:29:29 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2013, 05:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 05:04:42 AM
I am sorry but apart from the European far right being more socialist, I fail to see the difference between them and the TP. They are your far right. And 5th of your population thinks they are cool. Deal with it.
So except for the European far right being more (trait that is directly opposite of Tea Party's guiding principle), you fail to see the difference? That's funny.
Only idiots would describe the Tea Party as neo-Nazis. I assume that's not true for the European parties you've described as neo-Nazis. So there's another difference.
Besides, if the government's not running, how are they gonna get people into the camps?
They are intolerant, radical representatives of the right-sided values of their country. How is that not far-right, the mind boggles.
Many are intolerant but there are levels of intolerance. There is the "I don't much care for Xs", and the "Let's go out and beat up some Xs". The second one is what Neo-Nazi types do. A second thing is that many are
not intolerant of others.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 05:47:33 AM
Yeah they haven`t done anything stupid, scary, or controversial before this.
Don't go full retard on us, Tamas. The world is full of political parties that had proposed policies that are "stupid, scary, or controversial" without those parties being the equivalent of the Hungarian neo-Nazis.
The US equivalent of the Hungarian Nazis is the American Nazis. The Tea Parties are not Nazi-like in any discernible fashion.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2013, 11:02:28 PM
OK, he has destroyed the Republican Party (or permitted them to destroy themselves) as an organized force for evil for the next decade.
But in a way, I think I'm right, despite my hyperbole: when the Republican Party finally reconstitutes, it will be a very different beast, one less retarded.
:lol:
Ok, not neo-Nazis.
But how they are not the far-right of the American spectrum, I fail to see.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 07:01:16 AM
But in a way, I think I'm right, despite my hyperbole: when the Republican Party finally reconstitutes, it will be a very different beast, one less retarded.
:lol:
[/quote]
lol, no kidding. They'll still be pretty retarded.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2013, 08:47:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 07:01:16 AM
But in a way, I think I'm right, despite my hyperbole: when the Republican Party finally reconstitutes, it will be a very different beast, one less retarded.
:lol:
lol, no kidding. They'll still be pretty retarded.
[/quote]
I was laughing at the idea that Obama has destroyed the Republican party.
On a different note:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-failure-may-boost-tea-party/article14824273/
QuoteBudget battle may strengthen Tea Party grip on GOP
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
I was laughing at the idea that Obama has destroyed the Republican party.
In a way, he has; their pure hatred of the man and all things black has turned them inside out to a degree not seen since the Democrat's hatred of Nixon totally fractured the party.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
On a different note:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-failure-may-boost-tea-party/article14824273/
QuoteBudget battle may strengthen Tea Party grip on GOP
That's horrifying. :blink:
Tamas was only taking a lot of the anti-Tea Party rhetoric here & elsewhere to its natural conclusion. He gets all his info second-hand, so it's kind of hard for me to blame him for what he said.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:54:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
On a different note:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-failure-may-boost-tea-party/article14824273/
QuoteBudget battle may strengthen Tea Party grip on GOP
That's horrifying. :blink:
Hyperbole much? :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 08:36:50 AM
Ok, not neo-Nazis.
But how they are not the far-right of the American spectrum, I fail to see.
No one is arguing that they are not. They are just saying Nazis are still a couple more notches to the right.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
Hyperbole much? :lol:
It is horrifying, particularly to people who used to belong to the party.
I wish Poppy Bush would kick all these Teabaggers in the ass. With colorful socks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2013, 08:50:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
I was laughing at the idea that Obama has destroyed the Republican party.
In a way, he has; their pure hatred of the man and all things black has turned them inside out to a degree not seen since the Democrat's hatred of Nixon totally fractured the party.
Ok, sunshine.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:54:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
On a different note:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-failure-may-boost-tea-party/article14824273/
QuoteBudget battle may strengthen Tea Party grip on GOP
That's horrifying. :blink:
Hyperbole much? :lol:
No, it's pretty scary actually. At some point the executive will just shut legislative out of governing.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2013, 08:50:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
I was laughing at the idea that Obama has destroyed the Republican party.
In a way, he has; their pure hatred of the man and all things black has turned them inside out to a degree not seen since the Democrat's hatred of Nixon totally fractured the party.
Ok, sunshine.
You wouldn't consider the GOP in as much of a fractured mess as the Democratic Party was in 1974-76? You think it's in better shape?
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
Hyperbole much? :lol:
Not at all.
I've been pretty vocally opposed to the Tea Party and what they represent. That they are the only alternative to Democrats is... terrifying to me. I'd hoped that with time, the Republican Party would move away from social conservatism. I don't see that happening with a stronger Tea Party contingent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2013, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2013, 08:50:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
I was laughing at the idea that Obama has destroyed the Republican party.
In a way, he has; their pure hatred of the man and all things black has turned them inside out to a degree not seen since the Democrat's hatred of Nixon totally fractured the party.
Ok, sunshine.
You wouldn't consider the GOP in as much of a fractured mess as the Democratic Party was in 1974-76? You think it's in better shape?
I don't see any sign that the party is falling to pieces. Discipline still seems, for the most part, high.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:05:47 AM
I don't see any sign that the party is falling to pieces. Discipline still seems, for the most part, high.
Right, John Boehner is totally in control of his party's caucus.
And you call me sunshine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2013, 09:08:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:05:47 AM
I don't see any sign that the party is falling to pieces. Discipline still seems, for the most part, high.
Right, John Boehner is totally in control of his party's caucus.
And you call me sunshine.
I'm not sure his weakness belies the fact that the Republicans have still largely voted en bloc against opposing legislation.
Scaremongering.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 11, 2013, 08:58:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 08:36:50 AM
Ok, not neo-Nazis.
But how they are not the far-right of the American spectrum, I fail to see.
No one is arguing that they are not. They are just saying Nazis are still a couple more notches to the right.
I am not sure about that. People, is the Tea Party a far-right organization?
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:58:18 AM
Tamas was only taking a lot of the anti-Tea Party rhetoric here & elsewhere to its natural conclusion. He gets all his info second-hand, so it's kind of hard for me to blame him for what he said.
I do blame him.
Nobody on Languish this long should still be naive enough to take that kind of rhetoric at face value. I've told Tamas specifically over and over that he needs to think a bit more critically about how various groups are portrayed in the various press around the world.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 11, 2013, 08:58:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2013, 08:36:50 AM
Ok, not neo-Nazis.
But how they are not the far-right of the American spectrum, I fail to see.
No one is arguing that they are not. They are just saying Nazis are still a couple more notches to the right.
I am not sure about that. People, is the Tea Party a far-right organization?
What difference does it make whether they are or not?
Just because they are far right, and neo-nazis are far right, doesn't make them neo-nazis, or comparable to neo-nazis.
Jesus, sometimes you just won't take off you stupid hat for anything. Your smarter than this - I KNOW you are.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
On a different note:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-failure-may-boost-tea-party/article14824273/
QuoteBudget battle may strengthen Tea Party grip on GOP
I've never noted that The Globe and Mail had any real cred when it comes to American politics. They choose to report on"analysts" who view the current struggle as being the new right against "liberal elites."
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 09:18:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
On a different note:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-failure-may-boost-tea-party/article14824273/
QuoteBudget battle may strengthen Tea Party grip on GOP
I've never noted that The Globe and Mail had any real cred when it comes to American politics. They choose to report on"analysts" who view the current struggle as being the new right against "liberal elites."
This is the part I found interesting.
QuoteAn Associated Press-GfK poll released Wednesday showed that Republicans in general, but not the Tea Party, are taking the biggest share of the public's blame for the impasse.
And, rather than a malcontent fringe, the poll showed the Tea Party as a powerful and polarizing force among Republicans. More than four in 10 Republicans identified with the Tea Party and were more apt than other Republicans to insist that their leaders hold firm in the standoff.
Wow, I am shocked that those who identify with the Tea Party are more likely to insist that their leaders hold firm on the Tea Party Stupid platform.
Who would have seen that coming?
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 09:18:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:48:40 AM
On a different note:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-failure-may-boost-tea-party/article14824273/
QuoteBudget battle may strengthen Tea Party grip on GOP
I've never noted that The Globe and Mail had any real cred when it comes to American politics. They choose to report on"analysts" who view the current struggle as being the new right against "liberal elites."
By and large, Canadians are totally puzzled by current US politics.
But then, I'm unsure of whether they make much sense to Americans, either. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 09:20:56 AM
Wow, I am shocked that those who identify with the Tea Party are more likely to insist that their leaders hold firm on the Tea Party Stupid platform.
Who would have seen that coming?
Okay I'll try yet again. :P
QuoteAn Associated Press-GfK poll released Wednesday showed that Republicans in general, but not the Tea Party, are taking the biggest share of the public's blame for the impasse.
And, rather than a malcontent fringe, the poll showed the Tea Party as a powerful and polarizing force among Republicans. More than four in 10 Republicans identified with the Tea Party and were more apt than other Republicans to insist that their leaders hold firm in the standoff.
Though, of course, I didn't look at the poll questions, so I can't say truly what those bits mean - but on the face I hadn't expected either of them.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 11, 2013, 08:58:57 AM
No one is arguing that they are not. They are just saying Nazis are still a couple more notches to the right.
No, this isn't it; the difference between National Socialists and libertarians is more than some number of "notches" on the simplistic left-right political axis. I'd argue that the Tea party types are, in fact, far to the right of the Nazis. The Nazis espoused policies that don't fit the left-right axis, though, like the individuals subordination to the race, and the need for an all-powerful totalitarian government that can muster the race to conquer territory in order to seed it with more of the master race and out-breed the subraces. The Tea Party types would oppose such policies far more than the left would.
Now, there also is the Puritan wing of the Republican party, many of whom are also Tea party types, who would welcome a government strong enough to muster the culture and repel the subcultures (they would speak in terms of culture, not race, because even they aren't dumb enough to miss the link between extreme racism and charges of neo-Naziism), but that's not what the Tea Party itself is about.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2013, 10:54:51 PM
I should have guessed. It's all been a high-stakes game of intellectual chess. By feigning pussitude during the first five years of his presidency, only to regain a spine at the last moment, Obama has destroyed the Republican Party for all time. It's like Cannae, or The Usual Suspects, or something.
Didn't the other side win after Cannae?
Yes but Tamas was looking for an answer based on the left-right axis.
What is the Tea Party about?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 09:04:25 AM
I've been pretty vocally opposed to the Tea Party and what they represent. That they are the only alternative to Democrats is... terrifying to me. I'd hoped that with time, the Republican Party would move away from social conservatism. I don't see that happening with a stronger Tea Party contingent.
If social conservatism is what horrifies you, then you shouldn't worry quite as much about the Tea Party. There surely is a bit of latent social conservatism amongst some Tea Party types, but it's social issues are not high up on the agenda.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 09:49:52 AM
If social conservatism is what horrifies you, then you shouldn't worry quite as much about the Tea Party. There surely is a bit of latent social conservatism amongst some Tea Party types, but it's social issues are not high up on the agenda.
I don't know. They seem pretty split on this sort of thing. Sure the Libertarian types do not care but from what I can tell they are the minority group within the Tea Party.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 09:49:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 09:04:25 AM
I've been pretty vocally opposed to the Tea Party and what they represent. That they are the only alternative to Democrats is... terrifying to me. I'd hoped that with time, the Republican Party would move away from social conservatism. I don't see that happening with a stronger Tea Party contingent.
If social conservatism is what horrifies you, then you shouldn't worry quite as much about the Tea Party. There surely is a bit of latent social conservatism amongst some Tea Party types, but it's social issues are not high up on the agenda.
:yes: That's definitely the bullshit some are trying to sell us.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that use of the right-left axis is not just simplistic but misleading. But I guess it's part of our nature to pigeon hole so we'll carry on categorising people and movements.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 09:56:18 AM
I don't know. They seem pretty split on this sort of thing. Sure the Libertarian types do not care but from what I can tell they are the minority group within the Tea Party.
Libertarian types have been the driving force in the Tea Party.
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2013, 10:00:05 AM
I'm becoming more and more convinced that use of the right-left axis is not just simplistic but misleading. But I guess it's part of our nature to pigeon hole so we'll carry on categorising people and movements.
Yup. It never made any sense. The Nazis were not a more extreme form of conservatism, and Stalinism was not a more extreme form of liberalism. Neither had anything to do with party politics as we know and love them today (indeed both had nothing but scorn and hatred for such things).
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2013, 09:29:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2013, 10:54:51 PM
I should have guessed. It's all been a high-stakes game of intellectual chess. By feigning pussitude during the first five years of his presidency, only to regain a spine at the last moment, Obama has destroyed the Republican Party for all time. It's like Cannae, or The Usual Suspects, or something.
Didn't the other side win after Cannae?
Well, the Republicans are trying to live up to the title "Cunctator" ... :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 09:56:18 AM
I don't know. They seem pretty split on this sort of thing. Sure the Libertarian types do not care but from what I can tell they are the minority group within the Tea Party.
Libertarian types have been the driving force in the Tea Party.
I seriously doubt that. Right now the majority is lining up behind them because they are strident and just happen to be opposing the President right now. The Libertarians will be marginalized if the Tea Party ever actually gets power.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 09:56:18 AM
I don't know. They seem pretty split on this sort of thing. Sure the Libertarian types do not care but from what I can tell they are the minority group within the Tea Party.
Libertarian types have been the driving force in the Tea Party.
Nonsense.
I know the TP tries to show off as libertarian, but being all fundie-hardcore on religious issues and whatnot is NOT libertarian.
That`s an other radical right characteristic by the way. Insisting that you specifically get free hand to do whatever, but everybody else should live according to the rules you set for them.
And Berkut the implication is that the far-right posseses some characteristics that really should not be acceptable, and yes they are largely the same regardless of being hold by righteous Tea Partiers, Le Pen sympathiser old folks in France, or skin-headed youth in Poland. Namely intolerance, disrespect for the democratic process, bigotry, and a feeling of self-righteousness, just to list the most mild ones.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 10:14:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 09:56:18 AM
I don't know. They seem pretty split on this sort of thing. Sure the Libertarian types do not care but from what I can tell they are the minority group within the Tea Party.
Libertarian types have been the driving force in the Tea Party.
Nonsense.
The Tea Party movement was founded/started by anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-government libertarians. It took about an hour and a half for the nutcase, religious fundy, cultural warriors to take the movement over.
Quote from: sbr on October 11, 2013, 10:17:46 AM
The Tea Party movement was founded/started by anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-government libertarians. It took about an hour and a half for the nutcase, religious fundy, cultural warriors to take the movement over.
Yeah the Tea Party means one of two things:
1. You are a Libertarian in Republican's clothing
2. You are a Conservative but just more fanatical and inflexible.
Quote from: sbr on October 11, 2013, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 10:14:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 09:56:18 AM
I don't know. They seem pretty split on this sort of thing. Sure the Libertarian types do not care but from what I can tell they are the minority group within the Tea Party.
Libertarian types have been the driving force in the Tea Party.
Nonsense.
The Tea Party movement was founded/started by anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-government libertarians. It took about an hour and a half for the nutcase, religious fundy, cultural warriors to take the movement over.
Why exagerate? it took them like a whole day or so, it may have been a Sunday or something.
You guys are wacky.
Quote from: sbr on October 11, 2013, 10:17:46 AM
The Tea Party movement was founded/started by anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-government libertarians. It took about an hour and a half for the nutcase, religious fundy, cultural warriors to take the movement over.
Most anti-tax, anti-government folks are also religious culture warriors. But when you compare GOP rhetoric before and after the Tea Party, there's not a lot of movement on that front. There has been a significant increase in whining over government spending(granted part of that is having a Democrat in the White House).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2013, 10:31:26 AM
Most anti-tax, anti-government folks are also religious culture warriors.
Which means they are not anti-government types. Which is precisely what I am saying.
QuoteThere has been a significant increase in whining over government spending(granted part of that is having a Democrat in the White House).
Exactly. Just like how the Republicans went from being pro-States when Clinton was in office to suddenly favoring Federal solutions once their guy was in office.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 11, 2013, 10:38:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 10:26:22 AM
You guys are wacky.
Truth hurt, eh.
No, you guys really are whacky.
You guys are insisting that your caricature of the Tea Party is the real Tea Party, so you can more easily be outraged by it.
Which is ridiculous, because there is plenty to be outraged by without the need to create this Frankenstein tea Party that the people who actually identify themselves as "Tea Party" would never agree represents them.
But who am I kidding, I am tilting at windmills.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 10:26:22 AM
You guys are wacky.
Im not intending to be wacky, could you explain where I am wrong? Assuming I am one of the wacky ones? :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2013, 10:31:26 AM
Quote from: sbr on October 11, 2013, 10:17:46 AM
The Tea Party movement was founded/started by anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-government libertarians. It took about an hour and a half for the nutcase, religious fundy, cultural warriors to take the movement over.
Most anti-tax, anti-government folks are also religious culture warriors. But when you compare GOP rhetoric before and after the Tea Party, there's not a lot of movement on that front. There has been a significant increase in whining over government spending(granted part of that is having a Democrat in the White House).
That's probably right, but the original Tea Party (in this context, and assuming IIRC) was a protest on April 15 about taxes. Even the spending stuff was secondary at that moment I believe. Most anti-tax people are anti-government just by definition.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 10:41:38 AM
No, you guys really are whacky.
You guys are insisting that your caricature of the Tea Party is the real Tea Party, so you can more easily be outraged by it.
Which is ridiculous, because there is plenty to be outraged by without the need to create this Frankenstein tea Party that the people who actually identify themselves as "Tea Party" would never agree represents them.
But who am I kidding, I am tilting at windmills.
Why should I be outraged by the Tea Party? They are just the same people that have always been there. I am just going by what the Libertarian types themselves have been saying about it. That they are just a minority wing in this deal.
Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 10:34:26 AM
Which means they are not anti-government types. Which is precisely what I am saying.
They're not anarchists, sure. I think their voters(not sure about the politicians) are pretty sincere about wanting a government that takes in less money though.
Quote
Exactly. Just like how the Republicans went from being pro-States when Clinton was in office to suddenly favoring Federal solutions once their guy was in office.
I could get behind a tribalist interpretation, that the Tea Party exists just to spite the Democrats for winning rather than as an ideological movement. But the theory some posters are forwarding here is that there is an ideological basis and it's social issues driving it. I don't think that's accurate. My impression has been that Republicans over the past 5 years have been focusing on the deficit and the economy more than ever.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2013, 10:56:09 AM
My impression has been that Republicans over the past 5 years have been focusing on the deficit and the economy more than ever.
Those are obvious weaknesses of the President though.
QuoteI think their voters(not sure about the politicians) are pretty sincere about wanting a government that takes in less money though.
Yeah? And how many want to do the things to make that happen like significantly cut the military? Hardly any except the Libertarians.
But it hardly matters. Someday they will be in power again and then we will see how sincere they are.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".
I'm not sure, to be honest. I can tell you that the Tea Party here in Champaign - or those who identify themselves as such by marching at the park, anyway - are social conservatives who are anti any kind of tax at all.
It seems that derspeiss thinks otherwise, so it may just be the local group.
And why do I feel like we've had this discussion before?
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label?
Like any successful American political movement both of these things are true :P
PW is right. The current Tea Party is about, at least in theory, smaller government.
In reality, they are a LOT about ZOMG WE MUST BEAT OBAMA AT ALL COSTS BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY! reactionary stupidity - but it is most certainly under the context of their over-riding desire to reduce the size (or at least limit the growth) of the federal government.
What makes them ridiculous is that they have zero idea about how to actually govern. Or, to put it maybe in a more generous light, they've realized that they CANNOT govern while maintaining their principles. Which I think is largely true - there is simply no way to reverse back to what they want. The "Should the US be a socialist nation" ship sailed a long, long, LONG time ago.
Fortunately, my family overseas keeps me up to date about THE TRUTH in AMERIKKKA:
http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/08/pentagon-warns-radical-changes-coming-u-s-next-fortnight/
QuotePentagon Warns of "Radical Changes" Coming to the U.S. In the Next Fortnight
A frighteningly serious "urgent bulletin" issued earlier today by certain sects within European government branches (http://www.eutimes.net/2013/10/pentagon-warns-to-expect-radical-change-in-us-government-soon/) states that information has been received from main intelligence sources warning to expect a "radical change" in the government of the United States, possibly within the next fortnight, based on information they have received from "highly placed" sources within the the U.S. Department of Defense.
According to the bulletin, intelligence assets were notified by their Pentagon counterparts this past week that U.S. President Barack Obama is preparing to invoke the powers given to him under 50 USC Chapter 13 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50) to hold that various American States are now in a "state of insurrection." This will allow him to invoke the National Emergencies Act under 50 USC § 1621 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1621) and in turn invoke the highly controversial "continuity of government" plan for the United States allowing him, to rule with supreme powers.
What is the "continuity of government" plan? In essence, it was an emergency plan created by top government and corporate officials, Former U.S. Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney being two of them (Chaney also served as vice-president under U.S. President George W. Bush) in which a "shadow government" takes control should any natural or man-made catastrophe afflict the U.S. The plan was created shortly after the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan.
One of the most alarming aspects of the plan, is that Congress is not re-activated or acknowledged even if it is still in existence. Creators of the plan used the excuse that "it might take too long to find the members of congress" after a catastrophe, so all power is simply given to the President, who becomes supreme leader.
The reason President Obama is considering declaring a National State of Emergency, according to the bulletin, was outlined yesterday by Obama's US Treasury Department, which released a report warning of potentially "catastrophic" damage should Congress fail to raise the debt ceiling and prevent the government from defaulting on its debt.
Many people believe that China is flexing its military muscles right now, in preparation for a U.S. invasion should the Obama regime default on payment. If the U.S. defaults, it would be the first time in the nation's history. Read more here: Obama to Cause U.S. to Default on Credit For First Time In Nation's History Spiraling Milk to $100 a Gallon (http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/07/obama-cause-u-s-defalut-credit-first-time-nations-history-spiralling-milk-100-gallon/)
:o :o :o
QuoteMany people believe that China is flexing its military muscles right now, in preparation for a U.S. invasion should the Obama regime default on payment.
LOL
Oh those wacky 'many people'.
That would be really, really, REALLY awesome.
Man. The possibilities.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".
It's not really a centralized movement, which makes it a little tricky to pin down on some things.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 10:41:38 AM
No, you guys really are whacky.
You guys are insisting that your caricature of the Tea Party is the real Tea Party, so you can more easily be outraged by it.
Which is ridiculous, because there is plenty to be outraged by without the need to create this Frankenstein tea Party that the people who actually identify themselves as "Tea Party" would never agree represents them.
But who am I kidding, I am tilting at windmills.
Exactly. They already "know" the truth, so why should they heed any facts that might interfere with their smug certainty? Ted Cruz has a gay billionaire sugardaddy, but he is secretly a cultural warrior bent on stamping out all reference to the existence of gays. We just don't know about it, unless we are Canadian.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".
That's why I generally refer to "Tea party types" rather than "Tea partiers" or whatever. There are a dozen or so Tea Parties.
Ted Cruz, also a Canadian.
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 11:58:28 AM
Exactly. They already "know" the truth, so why should they heed any facts that might interfere with their smug certainty? Ted Cruz has a gay billionaire sugardaddy, but he is secretly a cultural warrior bent on stamping out all reference to the existence of gays. We just don't know about it, unless we are Canadian.
Oh so are we just talking about the Canadians here? Berkut needed to be more specific he just said 'you guys' without addressing anybody in particular.
If they want to discuss their countryman Ted Cruz more power to them I guess.
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 11:58:28 AM
Exactly. They already "know" the truth, so why should they heed any facts that might interfere with their smug certainty? Ted Cruz has a gay billionaire sugardaddy, but he is secretly a cultural warrior bent on stamping out all reference to the existence of gays. We just don't know about it, unless we are Canadian.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Ted_Cruz.htm
Quote
Ted Cruz on Abortion:
Click here for 4 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
•Companies can deny insuring birth control. (Apr 2012)
•Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban. (Jul 2011)
•Opposes public abortion funding. (Oct 2012)
•Opposes churches providing birth control. (Oct 2012)
on Civil Rights:
•Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage. (Feb 2012)
•One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society. (Jul 2011)
•Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway. (Jul 2011)
•Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
•Supports defining traditional marriage. (Oct 2012)
•Supports banning military gay marriage. (Oct 2012)
It is kind of funny how famous Cruz has gotten after only being in office a few months. That guy knows publicity.
Actually, in looking at a sampling of those who identify themselves as Tea Partiers in the House, you get the following. I deliberately avoided the southern states as they tend to be socially conservative in general.
QuoteSteve King on abortion:
•Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
•Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
•Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
•Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
•Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
•Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
•Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
•Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
•Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
•Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
•Ban abortions for sex selection or race selection. (Dec 2011)
•Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
•Prohibiting forced abortions by UN Population Fund. (May 2011)
•Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
•Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
•No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jan 2013)
•Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
•Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment. (Feb 2009)
Steve King on Civil Rights:
•Gay marriage is path to socialism. (Sep 2009)
•Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
•Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
•Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
•Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
•Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
•Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
•Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
•Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
•Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
•Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)
Doug Lamborn on Abortion:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Prohibiting forced abortions by UN Population Fund. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jan 2013)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers. (Apr 2009)
Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment. (Feb 2009)
Doug Lamborn on Civil Rights:
Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Ensure disabled access to public pools. (Jan 2013)
Tim Walburg on Abortion:
Strongly pro-life. (Nov 2006)
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)
Ban abortions for sex selection or race selection. (Dec 2011)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jan 2013)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
Tim Walburg on Civil Rights:
Supports the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Nov 2006)
Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
I don't believe any of those are pet issues for Cruz, Meri. To you they probably make him a dangerous mofo regardless, but he seems to have prioritized economic/budget issues ahead of social stuff. And it's worth noting that he apparently supports a soft amnesty re: illegal immigration.
Will the Chinese invade Alaska or just make an end run through the Canal and burn the public buildings in DC?
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 12:27:13 PM
I don't believe any of those are pet issues for Cruz, Meri. To you they probably make him a dangerous mofo regardless, but he seems to have prioritized economic/budget issues ahead of social stuff. And it's worth noting that he apparently supports a soft amnesty re: illegal immigration.
He hasn't prioritized it right now, because we're in the middle of a budget crisis. If he gets elected President, do you think that will magically go away?
The point is that these are not just Libertarians. These are social conservatives who are also fiscally conservatives. And they're not shy about being either. So yes, that terrifies me.
President? Slow down there, hon.
Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 12:32:59 PM
President? Slow down there, hon.
Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?
Rand's hair is way more scary.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 12:27:13 PM
I don't believe any of those are pet issues for Cruz, Meri.
I don't think so either (though he has only been around a very short time, still too early to know for sure). He is going to feel compelled to take those sorts of stances anyway just to fend off primary challenges. It does seem like he made some speech about creating a more virtuous Christian nation which was a bit unnecessary (though that might have been Rand Paul). But it is not like he is different from John Cornyn or any of the mainstream Texas Republicans on those points.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 10:41:38 AM
No, you guys really are whacky.
You guys are insisting that your caricature of the Tea Party is the real Tea Party, so you can more easily be outraged by it.
Which is ridiculous, because there is plenty to be outraged by without the need to create this Frankenstein tea Party that the people who actually identify themselves as "Tea Party" would never agree represents them.
But who am I kidding, I am tilting at windmills.
Are you saying that the Tea Party contingent in the House aren't a bunch of social conservatives who, pretty much as a body, voted against civil rights for homosexuals and abortion rights for women?
That's encroaching on the rights of those they didn't agree with using government. That's not small government.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 12:32:59 PM
President? Slow down there, hon.
Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?
Okay, sweetheart.
But don't sit here and claim that the Tea Party isn't what I think it is, either. They have voted time and again to use government to prevent people from living as they choose. They are not about small government. They have never been about small government.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".
No. The Tea party doesn't actually stand for anything except being opposed to Obama and Democrats. It's not actually an organization but a bunch of them under the common label.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2013, 12:56:14 PM
No. The Tea party doesn't actually stand for anything except being opposed to Obama and Democrats. It's not actually an organization but a bunch of them under the common label.
Huh. I thought they did have an organization.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 12:48:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 12:32:59 PM
President? Slow down there, hon.
Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?
Okay, sweetheart.
But don't sit here and claim that the Tea Party isn't what I think it is, either. They have voted time and again to use government to prevent people from living as they choose. They are not about small government. They have never been about small government.
They are all about small government.
You might think that means that their values are not always consistent, but that is true for every single politician everywhere who holds any kind of values at all.
All issues are ones of competing interests. I agree with you on most of these social issues, but that doesn't mean I do not perfectly understand how a Tea Party ideologue can be all about small government while at the exact same time wanting to restrict gay marriage.
You don't have to understand this yourself, but you would have a much better understanding of politics if you were more willing to at least make an effort to understand what the "other guy" actually thinks, rather than just assume they are some monsters who do not even make internal sense.
However, that is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as just comparing them to Nazi's of course. Or whatever.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 01:02:45 PM
They are all about small government.
You might think that means that their values are not always consistent, but that is true for every single politician everywhere who holds any kind of values at all.
All issues are ones of competing interests. I agree with you on most of these social issues, but that doesn't mean I do not perfectly understand how a Tea Party ideologue can be all about small government while at the exact same time wanting to restrict gay marriage.
You don't have to understand this yourself, but you would have a much better understanding of politics if you were more willing to at least make an effort to understand what the "other guy" actually thinks, rather than just assume they are some monsters who do not even make internal sense.
However, that is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as just comparing them to Nazi's of course. Or whatever.
Given that I've never compared them to Nazis, I'm not really sure where that emotional dig comes from.
The Tea Partiers aren't monsters, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them being in charge of me or my country. I disagree with ~80% of what they claim to be for, starting with the social issues. But I also disagree with their desire to create some mythical "small government" that doesn't include cutting spending for the military, but shockingly takes away all funding for helping those in need.
But you've decided what I know and don't know, think and don't think, and apparently feel. So, what was that phrase you used? Tilting at windmills?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 12:48:52 PM
Okay, sweetheart.
I thought calling people with whom you have no emotional relationship "sweetheart" was a Bad Thing. Or is it only a Bad Thing when guys do it, and women can be dismissive at will?
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 01:19:02 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 12:48:52 PM
Okay, sweetheart.
I thought calling people with whom you have no emotional relationship "sweetheart" was a Bad Thing. Or is it only a Bad Thing when guys do it, and women can be dismissive at will?
No, it was intended as a Bad Thing.
Down here in the south, just about everyone is "sweetheart".
In other news, seems Utah will pay to have their 5 National Parks open back up.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 01:19:47 PM
No, it was intended as a Bad Thing.
So it is permissible to guys, as well, so long as they intend it as a Bad Thing? Good. Maybe that'll shut up some of the whiners.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 11, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
Down here in the south, just about everyone is "sweetheart".
Yep. So long as it is intended as a Bad Thing, though, I don't mind.
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 01:26:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 01:19:47 PM
No, it was intended as a Bad Thing.
So it is permissible to guys, as well, so long as they intend it as a Bad Thing? Good. Maybe that'll shut up some of the whiners.
You can do what you want. I'm not your mom.
I took it as a Good Thing :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 01:32:25 PM
I took it as a Good Thing :hug:
That Meri is not grumbler's mom?
Sure.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 01:29:55 PM
You can do what you want. I'm not your mom.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.zmescience.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2Fcaptain-obvious.jpg&hash=ab85eee082a3c2e917b0153a369ac19d51c69705)
grumbler's mother was a tragic victim of the supervocano eruption at Toba some years ago. :( low blow Meri.
So was the human population bottleneck, like, awesome? I bet you had your pick of the fillies.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 01:02:45 PM
They are all about small government.
You might think that means that their values are not always consistent, but that is true for every single politician everywhere who holds any kind of values at all.
All issues are ones of competing interests. I agree with you on most of these social issues, but that doesn't mean I do not perfectly understand how a Tea Party ideologue can be all about small government while at the exact same time wanting to restrict gay marriage.
You don't have to understand this yourself, but you would have a much better understanding of politics if you were more willing to at least make an effort to understand what the "other guy" actually thinks, rather than just assume they are some monsters who do not even make internal sense.
However, that is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as just comparing them to Nazi's of course. Or whatever.
Given that I've never compared them to Nazis, I'm not really sure where that emotional dig comes from.
The Tea Partiers aren't monsters, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them being in charge of me or my country. I disagree with ~80% of what they claim to be for, starting with the social issues. But I also disagree with their desire to create some mythical "small government" that doesn't include cutting spending for the military, but shockingly takes away all funding for helping those in need.
But you've decided what I know and don't know, think and don't think, and apparently feel. So, what was that phrase you used? Tilting at windmills?
Indeed.
Of course their view of small government includes funding the military, but not "helping people" or at least not as much. That is a perfectly logical position to take. Not agreeing with them is perfectly logical as well.
But when you say bullshit like "They are not about small government!" it means you are either stating something you know not to be true (for hyperbole sake?) or you very much do not understand what motivates them and what they are about.
You don't have to agree with it, but at least understand it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 01:29:55 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 01:26:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 01:19:47 PM
No, it was intended as a Bad Thing.
So it is permissible to guys, as well, so long as they intend it as a Bad Thing? Good. Maybe that'll shut up some of the whiners.
You can do what you want. I'm not your mom.
We better use Carbon Dating, just to make sure. ;)
...
Grumbles, she was responding in kind.
I understand that they are traitors and evil. Nazis? I don't guess they have to be Nazis, but they should certainly be hanged from the neck until dead.
In a more serious vein, it's hard to understand a political movement that is so detached from reality. But I think Berkut has a point that they are for a smaller central government; but Meri et al are more substantially correct when they say the Tea Party is hypocritical, because they are absolutely proponents of more intrusive state governments (but still not better-funded, because, again, utterly detached from reality), as well as proponents of private actors accruing more governing powers over people. They are absolutely authoritarian, they just think there's a free market solution for that.
I think they are pretty easy to understand, even though they are largely detached from reality.
Someone posted an article about the Tea Party and how they fundamentally are opposed to not just the size of the projected government, but the size of the current government.
Given that the reality of US political discourse since...oh, WW2? The Civil War? Has been pretty universally about HOW MUCH to grow the government, I can understand the frustration with someone who feels that the government shouldn't be doing these things at all. It's not like that position is in and of itself unreasonable or irrational. But as I've said as well, it seems pretty foregone that modern western society is fundamentally a socialist one, where we spend some appreciable portion of the increases in productivity on what are basically socialist endeavors. I've long since accepted that reality, and my personl little-l libertarian view is more about recognzing what government is good at and what they are not, and how to make it better, since there is apparently no actual way to stop it from growing.
But it isn't hard to understand at all the view that US political history has been a continuous and never ceasing set of "compromises" that *always* result in exactly what they don't want.
If I think the current government is size 10, and I think it should be size 5, and you think it should be size 15, it isn't really a great compromise on my part to agree to it only be size 12.
Ide wants size 0.
I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened. What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it. All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".
Given their name, I presume they hark back to that time around the Boston event and no taxation without representation etc. Whereas currently their congressmen seem to be pursuing a policy of representation without taxation ?
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened. What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it. All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.
That doesn't make sense though - my own frustrations with what? I am not a Tea Partier, and I pretty much think they stand for almost everything I despise about politics.
Saying that an entire political movement of the scale, scope, and success of the Tea Party is a "rebellion without a cause" is a fine example if the point I am making. It is a willful refusal to concede that another group have legitimacy, even when they aren't you.
Irony much?
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened. What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it. All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.
More or less agree. After all, their first cause was taxes, at a time when taxes were, and continue to be, historically low.
However, that's not the same thing as saying if a self-described TP'er is in favor of something, it is by definition bad.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 02:31:16 PM
Indeed.
Of course their view of small government includes funding the military, but not "helping people" or at least not as much. That is a perfectly logical position to take. Not agreeing with them is perfectly logical as well.
But when you say bullshit like "They are not about small government!" it means you are either stating something you know not to be true (for hyperbole sake?) or you very much do not understand what motivates them and what they are about.
You don't have to agree with it, but at least understand it.
Or I think that they claim one thing but show themselves to be something else entirely.
You presume to think that I don't understand them, when in fact, I'd argue that I understand them perfectly.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 03:02:03 PM
That doesn't make sense though - my own frustrations with what? I am not a Tea Partier, and I pretty much think they stand for almost everything I despise about politics.
Your frustration with lack of political checks on the growth of government. That makes you more likely to see that as the (possibly hijacked) legitimate cause driving the creation of TP.
Quote
Saying that an entire political movement of the scale, scope, and success of the Tea Party is a "rebellion without a cause" is a fine example if the point I am making. It is a willful refusal to concede that another group have legitimacy, even when they aren't you.
Irony much?
There is a difference between denying the legitimacy of a certain political block, and denying the legitimacy of a democratic government. Vast difference. Democracy can't function for long if the losers refuse to concede that the winners have popular mandate.
I guess I may be guilty of the thing I'm accusing Berkut of myself. I see OWS as a movement arising from the rebellion to the destructive casino capitalist system, but that may be wishful thinking in trying to ascribe what I think are sorely needed protests to a bunch of aimless malcontents.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened. What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it. All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.
A lot of people project their desires on the Tea Party. It's so easy because they don't actually stand for anything, they have no real shape or form and it's human nature to try to find meaning and patterns in things. It's political pareidolia. The Tea Party can be defined only by what they are against, and that is Obama.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2013, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened. What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it. All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.
A lot of people project their desires on the Tea Party. It's so easy because they don't actually stand for anything, they have no real shape or form and it's human nature to try to find meaning and patterns in things. It's political pareidolia. They can be defined only by what they are against, and that is Obama.
I'd never heard of "pareidolia" before, and it's a great word. Thanks, Raz! :)
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 10:41:38 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 11, 2013, 10:38:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 10:26:22 AM
You guys are wacky.
Truth hurt, eh.
No, you guys really are whacky.
You guys are insisting that your caricature of the Tea Party is the real Tea Party, so you can more easily be outraged by it.
Which is ridiculous, because there is plenty to be outraged by without the need to create this Frankenstein tea Party that the people who actually identify themselves as "Tea Party" would never agree represents them.
But who am I kidding, I am tilting at windmills.
They do have a point though. Michelle Bachmann, who helped found the Tea Party caucus in Congress, is a snake-handler. So there is definitely some level of social conservative infiltration into the Tea Party. How much one can argue, but it's not unreasonable to hate and fear them because of it.
DC mayor, who's a white dude of all things, begs Harry Reid on the steps of the Capitol to reopen DC. Harry tells him (on camera) "don't screw it up." Mayor claims DC has enough cash on hand for 10 days of operation.
It's all covered in layers of spin and obfuscation, but it seems that Obamacrats don't want to pass a debt ceiling increase unless it comes with a clean CR.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2013, 02:31:16 PM
But when you say bullshit like "They are not about small government!" it means you are either stating something you know not to be true (for hyperbole sake?) or you very much do not understand what motivates them and what they are about.
I don't think they are about small government.
They weren't keen on Paul Ryan's recent suggestions. I think some are worried about distributing government rather than just size. They don't like transfers to the 'undeserving' which Obamacare falls under while Social Security and Medicare doesn't. I think there's an element of racial anxiety there and a political fear that the Democrats are basically setting up programs that others will pay for to buy votes. The same fears I think motivate some of the opposition from tea partiers to immigration reform. You bring/buy off (predominately minority) voters and build a permanent Democratic majority that can change America - and Obama perfectly represents that: the most culturally elitist President in generations, a man who doesn't even feign to be folksy.
I don't think it's meant in a negative way. I think there's a genuine fear that the Democrats are trying to create dependant voters. I think there's an element of race and age in that view, but that isn't, I don't think, the motivator.
I think another chunk are genuine extremists on fiscal issues. They want cuts in dollar figures - not even a state that keeps pace with inflation. They want to turn back the Great Society and New Deal programs. And they are shocked to find out that the electorate don't agree with them. I think they're smaller and have piggy-backed onto other tea party groups over the common cause of opposing Obama and Obamacare.
If I'm honest I think they're not as worried about the size of government with the idea that what's happening with government (including size) is permanently changing America so they need to fight it a outrance. Again I think in this they're probably a mirror image of the far-left in this country in the Thatcher era, or perhaps in the US in the 70s.
QuoteI'd hoped that with time, the Republican Party would move away from social conservatism.
Who cares about social conservatism? Surely the problem of the Republican party in recent years has been fiscal not social extremism?
Personally I think the way abortion is in the US there will always be, and need to be, an anti-abortion party. The Republicans have lost the ability to talk about it in a way that doesn't alienate everyone else ('safe, legal and rare' v. 'rape rape'). So that's always going to be there. On the gays, they'll lose. They're on the wrong side of history and there's diminishing few votes for them.
QuoteIt's all covered in layers of spin and obfuscation, but it seems that Obamacrats don't want to pass a debt ceiling increase unless it comes with a clean CR.
Neither should Republicans. I can't see what real benefit they'll get from increasing the debt ceiling without a CR.
At best they'd be able to serialise their long domestic disagreements for a few more weeks? :blink:
As an aside I loved one argument I read that part of the problem is that you abolished earmarks. The majority can no longer quietly bribe recalcitrant members with some goodies for the district for a tough vote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2013, 06:27:52 PM
Neither should Republicans. I can't see what real benefit they'll get from increasing the debt ceiling without a CR.
Prevent financial Armageddon? :mellow:
Okay, more cynically. That's a benefit, but what's the upside for the party?
Is there any indication they're going to get anything on Obamacare? Even if they don't but they go for a grand bargain there's already opposition to that from the populist wing of the right - one for giving up on Obamacare and two for the cuts they'll involve.
As I'd see it they'd remove the potent threat of financial disaster that can justify them folding, without resolving any of their issues or divisions. This would just continue their slow boiling civil war, continue to make it public and continue to attract opprobrium for the shutdown.
I agree with the House leadership: if they've got to take a bullet better to take one than spread out two.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 03:29:26 PM
I guess I may be guilty of the thing I'm accusing Berkut of myself. I see OWS as a movement arising from the rebellion to the destructive casino capitalist system, but that may be wishful thinking in trying to ascribe what I think are sorely needed protests to a bunch of aimless malcontents.
Hard to say, I never met any of the OWS / American occupy people. :bowler:
Here's a couple of pieces I agree with, first Douthat:
QuoteThe Costs of Fantasy Politics
As of this morning, there's reason to hope that some time next week the government shutdown will end, the debt ceiling will be temporarily raised, and I'll be able to write a follow-up to my column on Pope Francis, or something about what should be the political story of the moment — the don't-call-it-trainwreck debut of Healthcare.gov — or even (who knows?) something more esoteric and random and fun. But for today, let me go one more round with Ben Domenech, who wrote yesterday in defense of a Republican strategy that would lift the debt ceiling while keeping the government shutdown going, and going, and going — a move that I likened on CNN to postponing a murder-suicide in order to just concentrate on slitting your own wrists, but which Domenech regards in a more favorable light. To my previous suggestion that the shutdown is ratifying the public's pre-existing distrust of G.O.P. governance, he writes:
QuoteExcept ... the House Republicans weren't trusted with anything like the reins of government even before the shutdown, either (they were already the most unpopular Congress ever before the last election – should they really fear the difference between 14 percent popularity then and 10 percent popularity today?). The American people have a longstanding belief, bolstered by a century of campaigning, that Democrats generally love government and Republicans generally hate it, and that's fine in a midterm election, especially in an era when no one trusts the government with anything.
The logical, responsible policy move here given Obamacare's disastrous launch would be an individual mandate delay, just like Jon Stewart and Wolf Blitzer have suggested. Douthat's right that Obama won't ever agree to do that. But every day he doesn't is a good day to advance the argument, and asserting that delay as the price of reopening the government doesn't mean you have to get it in order to be successful.
And what's the alternative? Some folks apparently think there's some deal to be made on the debt ceiling regarding entitlements – is that really more feasible? Boehner's held his caucus together with the exception of a few grumbling moderates, and any policy win he gets is a policy win he wouldn't have had otherwise.
Not surprisingly I disagree. First, it's completely possible for Republicans to seem too irresponsible, reckless and anti-government even for a midterm, base-mobilization election: Just ask the G.O.P. Senate candidates who lost entirely-winnable races even in the conservative wave election of 2010. The fact that the House G.O.P. is insulated from public opinion doesn't mean that it can't suffer reversals, and even if it doesn't there is no political world in which these kind of polling numbers make the path to a Republican Senate majority anything but harder to map out.
Second, the strategy that Republicans choose today doesn't only shape the landscape for 2014: It has consequences for the Republicans' broader position and brand identity, and for how everything from ongoing gubernatorial campaigns to the '16 presidential election plays out. The G.O.P.'s problem at the moment is that it's a congressional party with no clear ability to win presidential-level majorities. In that context, a faction that's trying to gain control of the party — as the right's populists currently are — should be demonstrating why its preferred approach and preferred policies are winning ones, and why a more populist turn can actually help Republicans avoid a replay of 2012 in 2016 and beyond. But the strategy that the populists are currently pursuing — narrowing the definition of True Conservatism to a point where tactics rather than ideology are the only working litmus test, pursuing those tactics even when they put conservatives squarely on the wrong side of public opinion, and then denouncing any alternative approach as a sell-out that justifies bolting for a third party — is likely to deliver one of two alternatives instead: Either a successful populist/Tea Party takeover, à la Goldwater in '64, that leaves the party in no position to actually contest a national election and secures Obama's legacy instead, or a backlash that elevates a Republican nominee who runs against Congressional conservatives, à la George W. Bush in 2000, and in the process re-empowers all the interest groups that the populists detest.
Third, I agree with Domenech that this is the perfect political moment for Republicans to be arguing for an individual mandate delay. But given that he himself concedes that Obama isn't going to cave and go along with such a policy move, how on earth does it help the G.O.P. press their case on the mandate issue if they're tying it to government shutdown that's even more unpopular than Obamacare? (Every day that Obama doesn't agree to delay the individual mandate is a good day to argue that he should ... unless it's also a day when you're shutting down the government!) Again, I understand the idea that threatening a shutdown on the health care law was a plausible way to help push the Obamacare issue back to center stage. But actually going through with the shutdown completely defeats the purpose of the push, because ... well, just read the polling for yourself.
And as for the alternative to all of this? Well, I suppose one possible alternative would be for Republicans to step outside the murder-suicide context of shutdowns and debt ceiling brinksmanship, set aside the fantasy of winning major policy victories in divided government, cut a few small deals if possible and otherwise just oppose the president's agenda on issues like immigration and climate change, and try to win the next two elections on the merits. This is how American political parties normally seek to enact their preferred policies, and the fact that the Republicans and Democrats are currently further apart ideologically than our political parties have traditionally been only strengthens the case for this old-fashioned way of doing things. Want to repeal/replace Obamacare, reform entitlements, do tax reform without tax increases? Go win a presidential election.
One final word: In today's edition of the Transom, Domenech urges Republicans freaked out by the disastrous polls to "keep calm and read Nate Silver." Here's what Silver has to say, in a piece downplaying the shutdown's likely impact on the next election cycle:
QuoteNone of this applies if the United States actually does default on its debt this time around, or if the U.S. shutdown persists for as long as Belgium's. But if the current round of negotiations is resolved within the next week or so, they might turn out to have a relatively minor impact by November 2014.
Right. If the current round of negotiations is resolved within the next week or so. Which seems like a much, much better argument for escaping from the shutdown cul-de-sac as swiftly as possible than for fighting it out on the current lines if it takes all autumn.
And Ezra Klein (<_<):
QuoteThe shutdown probably won't hurt Republicans in 2014. Here's what will.
By Ezra Klein, Published: October 11 at 12:03 pmE-mail the writer
I agree with Nate Silver on this: Political events in October 2013 are very unlikely to drive an election in November 2014.
That's particularly true assuming the GOP backs off soon. As Silver writes, "if the current round of negotiations is resolved within the next week or so, they might turn out to have a relatively minor impact by November 2014."
But the problem for the Republican Party isn't this shutdown. It's what led to this shutdown.
There are two ways to interpret the GOP's ill-considered strategy over these last few weeks. One is that it's an aberration. They just made a mistake. It won't happen again.
The other is that it's structural. They're not here because they forgot to carry the one. They're here because their party has become structurally dysfunctional in ways that are leading to self-destructive behavior.
If the structural explanation is correct, then some kind of temporary deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling to make room for budget negotiations isn't likely to do the Republican Party much good. The problems will persist, and recur, over the next year — and thus they will affect the 2014 election.
Imagine this scenario: Republicans agree to reopen the government and suspend the debt ceiling for six weeks while they try and negotiate a deal on Obamacare and the budget with President Obama. If the GOP's problem was simply that they made a mistake when planning this strategy and they have since learned their lesson, this could solve their problem: They strike a deal with the Obama administration that cuts entitlements and raises taxes and maybe makes some tweaks to Obamacare and that's end of the insane showdowns. In that world, this won't do the GOP much damage come 2014.
But does anyone really believe we live in that world?
First, as badly as they want to do that, as terrible as the polls look for them, top Republicans don't seem able to convince their members to reopen the government and suspend the debt ceiling so negotiations can take place in a more normal, less politically damaging, context. But let's assume they could.
The makeup of the GOP's coalition is such that the party's leaders can't sell the base on any compromise that Democrats would accept. They've all taken a pledge not to raise taxes (a pledge that's apparently so unbreakable that they won't even accept chained-CPI, which was one of their demands, without offsetting tax cuts). They're viewed with intense skepticism by the Tea Party.
So the question is, what then? If they reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling for six weeks and then they get nothing for it, will they really be able to pass a clean CR and another debt-ceiling increase in late-November? Or will the Tea Party feel that they gave Speaker John Boehner and his team a chance to do it their way and they failed. Now it's back to confrontation.
You can already see the seeds of this narrative being planted. Sen. Ted Cruz is telling his supporters that the polls look terrible for Democrats and that "the House of Reps needs to keep doing what it's been doing ... standing strong!" "I blame the leadership primarily because they decided to follow Cruz's strategy but in a half-[hearted] way," tweeted the Weekly Standard's Jay Cost, though the word he used wasn't "hearted."
If this ends and the negotiations fail, the lesson many in the party will take isn't that the GOP erred terribly in in employing these extreme and unpopular tactics. It'll be that they erred terribly in backing down from them, and letting the leadership muck up the clear messaging of Ted Cruz and the Tea Party.
Republicans should be very worried about what this episode means for their party in the midterms. But not because the shutdown itself is going to be foremost in voter's minds 13 months from now. It's because the shutdown is evidence of a Republican crack-up that is leading the party to pursue doomed, reckless and self-destructive campaigns. And if they keep doing that through the rest of 2013 and much of 2014, that will matter in the elections.
I wonder if, as I thought in 2012, the GOP need to get this out their system. Losing winnable Senate seats isn't enough. They need to nominate a Presidential candidate who truly excites the base and then he needs to lose enormously before the party can move on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2013, 06:27:52 PM
the most culturally elitist President in generations, a man who doesn't even feign to be folksy.
Oh, I don't know: the Poppy Bush of Yale and Kennebunkport was pretty much the very definition of the culturally elitism of dynastic WASP wealth and power.
QuoteChina state media blasts US shutdown, calls for a 'de-Americanized' world
By Ed Flanagan, Producer, NBC News
News analysis
BEIJING –With days to go before the United States debt default deadline, Beijing aired its frustrations with the shutdown Sunday, saying it was time to consider a "de-Americanized" world order.
With $1.28 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, China is easily the biggest foreign holder of American debt.
China has also funneled billions of dollars into private American investments – to the tune of an estimated $54 billion in 2012 alone.
"As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and the Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world," according to a stinging op-ed article by state news agency, Xinhua.
The article, published Sunday, conveyed Beijing's frustration with the spending and debt impasse that has paralyzed Washington for more than two weeks.
"Days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing," the piece added.
Should Congress not come to an agreement by Thursday's deadline on a new raised debt ceiling – the upper limit set by Congress on the amount of money the Federal government may borrow – China's potential losses stand to be devastating.
Prior to Sunday's commentary article, Chinese officials had been more measured in their analysis of the U.S. budget impasse. Last week, Vice-Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao noted only that "we have to see that the clock is ticking."
To many in China, the restraint on the part of China's ruling Communist Party over its second-largest trade partner's government problems was perhaps based in the belief that neither party, Democrat or Republican, would allow the U.S. to not honor its financial obligations.
"If we are really rational, I cannot imagine why someone would dare to bear this kind of responsibility because any real default will have a huge impact not only on the U.S. and China, but on the global economy," said Professor Zhao Longkai, a dean at the Guanghua School of Management at Beijing University. "It's hard for us to imagine anyone can be that crazy to push the limit to that level."
Zhao said the patience China had shown until recently was rooted not only in Beijing's confidence in America's ability to deal with the budgetary crisis, but also its own burgeoning self-confidence.
"For average Chinese people [the budget crisis] is a show there and we've seen it before... we also know that it's not only the United States that we are relying on, we have a lot of other investments," Zhao said.
The Xinhua commentary may raise eyebrows in Washington, but Beijing's frustration underscores a key point: Despite a desire to diversify its holdings, the Chinese government continues to buy U.S. Treasury bonds out of political and economic necessity.
As long as China's domestic growth and stability are boosted by American debt, the deep ties between the two countries will likely endure.
I'd like a de-chinafied world. With Minutemen III's.
That would be unpopular, Ed.
Everybody knows China is more popular than the US in all the global polls. I'm sure the rest of Asia would sincerely appreciate Chinese hegemony in the isolationist vacuum left by the Rand Administration.
A good bit of isolationism would remind the fucking foriegners of how good they had it.
No shit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 14, 2013, 08:23:00 AM
A good bit of isolationism would remind the fucking foriegners of how good they had it.
:hmm:
Yeah, then Russia can just start gobbling up the former soviet Republics.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 14, 2013, 08:21:19 AM
Everybody knows China is more popular than the US in all the global polls. I'm sure the rest of Asia would sincerely appreciate Chinese hegemony in the isolationist vacuum left by the Rand Administration.
Not anymore:#
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F67748000%2Fjpg%2F_67748860_67748859.jpg&hash=4f2eb7c500dd135688268aa3fbb58e9af876b481)
And certainly not in Asia or, say, France.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 08:34:25 AM
Not anymore:#
And certainly not in Asia or, say, France.
Oh yeah, that's really pulling away from each other. :D Amazing what a change in US administrations can do, even if there's no policy change.
It is still pretty disconcerting to see China's "positive" ranking still so high.
Looks like the the Axis is doing pretty good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 14, 2013, 08:45:39 AM
Oh yeah, that's really pulling away from each other. :D Amazing what a change in US administrations can do, even if there's no policy change.
That's 2013 so I don't think it'll have much of the Obama bounce left.
I think China's decline in the ratings is to do with her occasional attempts at more assertive foreign policy. Which always terrifies the rest of Asia/the World.
The world is fucked when those Axis bastards are getting all the good press.
I wonder what people have against South Korea. That's random.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:58:07 AM
I wonder what people have against South Korea. That's random.
Worried that their influence may have us all stuck with timers on our fans.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 14, 2013, 08:56:00 AM
The world is fucked when those Axis bastards are getting all the good press.
They and the British. I mean I know the Empire has been dead for about 50 years but it is sort of weird to think of people throughout Africa and Asia going 'Ah the British a powerful force for good!' Or maybe left wingers overstate the bitterness of Colonialism.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:58:07 AM
I wonder what people have against South Korea. That's random.
I think it's probably generically thinking there's lots of problems in 'Korea'. And they poll China.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:58:07 AM
I wonder what people have against South Korea. That's random.
International backlash known as the "Timmay Effect". They've lost standing by taking in too many ex-pat Assburgerish retards that repost useless news articles.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
They and the British. I mean I know the Empire has been dead for about 50 years but it is sort of weird to think of people throughout Africa and Asia going 'Ah the British a powerful force for good!' Or maybe left wingers overstate the bitterness of Colonialism.
Olympics, the BBC, British TV and music exports, big tourism destination.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
They and the British. I mean I know the Empire has been dead for about 50 years but it is sort of weird to think of people throughout Africa and Asia going 'Ah the British a powerful force for good!' Or maybe left wingers overstate the bitterness of Colonialism.
Olympics, the BBC, British TV and music exports, big tourism destination.
The world just cannot stay mad at you guys :hug:
What is Canadian influence? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
They and the British. I mean I know the Empire has been dead for about 50 years but it is sort of weird to think of people throughout Africa and Asia going 'Ah the British a powerful force for good!' Or maybe left wingers overstate the bitterness of Colonialism.
Olympics, the BBC, British TV and music exports, big tourism destination.
In other words: Doctor Who and the Beatles.
IIRC from the original thrwad, Germany did pretty fin in Africa where they're engaged economically, and Spain, oddly.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 14, 2013, 08:56:00 AM
The world is fucked when those Axis bastards are getting all the good press.
They and the British. I mean I know the Empire has been dead for about 50 years but it is sort of weird to think of people throughout Africa and Asia going 'Ah the British a powerful force for good!' Or maybe left wingers overstate the bitterness of Colonialism.
It's easy to look back at the colonial era with some nostalgia, given what came after it. The governments sponsored by the Americans and Soviets were far worse than the British Imperial rule, and if not for the British, they might have been colonized by the French or worse, the Belgians.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 14, 2013, 11:13:56 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
They and the British. I mean I know the Empire has been dead for about 50 years but it is sort of weird to think of people throughout Africa and Asia going 'Ah the British a powerful force for good!' Or maybe left wingers overstate the bitterness of Colonialism.
Olympics, the BBC, British TV and music exports, big tourism destination.
In other words: Doctor Who and the Beatles.
Don't forget Downton Abbey.
Ugh. Brit television.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 05:42:25 PM
Don't forget Downton Abbey.
Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey? I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.
I prefer Red Dwarf and Are You Being Served. I don't care about upper class people in general, especially snotty status obsessed Brits.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 05:42:25 PM
Don't forget Downton Abbey.
Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey? I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.
Don't know never seen it.
Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.
Quote from: mongers on October 14, 2013, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 05:42:25 PM
Don't forget Downton Abbey.
Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey? I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.
Don't know never seen it.
Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.
I am well aware the show is not popular on Languish :P
I was talking about worldwide.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey? I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.
Apparently 120 million viewers. So it's about 1/3 a royal wedding :lol:
On subject this strikes me as unhelpful:
QuoteDems decry midnight rule change
By Mike Lillis - 10/14/13 03:32 PM ET
House Democrats are fuming about a rule change adopted by Republicans just before the government shut down on Oct. 1, arguing it shows GOP leaders closed agencies intentionally.
Under long-standing House rules, any member of the chamber can bring a measure to the floor. But Republicans altered the rule governing legislation to fund the government so that only House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) holds the power to make such a motion.
The practical effect of that change became apparent on Saturday, when Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tried to bring the Senate-passed continuing resolution (CR) to the floor, only to be shot down.
"That motion may be offered only by the majority leader or his designee," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who was presiding over the chamber at the time.
The response didn't sit well with Van Hollen.
"Why are the rules rigged to keep the government shut down?" he asked.
The disagreement over how to reopen the government hinges on the scope of the chambers' spending proposals, with Democrats demanding the Senate's "clean" bill and most Republicans insisting any CR must make changes to ObamaCare.
Under the standing rules of the House, any member can make a "privileged" motion "to dispose of any amendment" when a "stage of disagreement" between the House and Senate "has been reached on a bill or resolution." That privilege, though rarely used, offers a roundabout way for the minority party to force votes on the floor.
But in the last hour of Sept. 30, Republicans on the House Rules Committee altered the rule governing the CR debate so that such a motion "may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee."
Explaining the change, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) made no attempt to disguise the Republicans' motivations. The alteration was made, he said, to prevent Democrats from bringing the Senate's "clean" CR to the floor, just as Republicans were calling for a conference on the competing bills.
"There are rules related to privileged motions that could take place almost effective immediately, and we're trying to go to conference," Sessions said.
"I understand you are, but that doesn't tell me why you changed the regular order so that only Mr. Cantor can do that under the rule," Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), senior Democrat on the panel, responded.
"There could be a motion as early as tonight [and] a conference would be avoided," Sessions said. "And we want a conference. We want to have an actual discussion."
"Well, I think you've taken that away," Slaughter said of the motion option.
"That's what I'm saying, we took that away," Sessions said.
"Oh mercy, it just gets deeper and deeper," Slaughter said.
The rule passed out of the committee with every Republican voting for it and every Democrat voting against.
Saturday's exchange between Van Hollen and Chaffetz followed a similar arc, with Democrats accusing the GOP of keeping the government closed and Republicans simply invoking their rule change as a way to keep the Senate CR off the House floor.
"The Rules Committee ... changes the standing rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open the government and gave that right exclusively to the Republican leader. Is that right?" Van Hollen asked.
"The House adopted that resolution," Chaffetz said.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328413-dems-decry-midnight-rule-change#ixzz2hkLP4nHg
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 07:39:54 PM
On subject this strikes me as unhelpful:
:yes:
What was Mr. Van Hollen thinking?
I see some of these republicans as having a similar agenda to the occupy wall street crowd, namely they want to bring down 'the system'.
Though clearly they have different visions of what should replace it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 07:32:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 14, 2013, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 05:42:25 PM
Don't forget Downton Abbey.
Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey? I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.
Don't know never seen it.
Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.
I am well aware the show is not popular on Languish :P
I was talking about worldwide.
Stupid Brit Bronte porn.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2013, 06:27:52 PMThey weren't keen on Paul Ryan's recent suggestions. I think some are worried about distributing government rather than just size. They don't like transfers to the 'undeserving' which Obamacare falls under while Social Security and Medicare doesn't. I think there's an element of racial anxiety there and a political fear that the Democrats are basically setting up programs that others will pay for to buy votes. The same fears I think motivate some of the opposition from tea partiers to immigration reform. You bring/buy off (predominately minority) voters and build a permanent Democratic majority that can change America - and Obama perfectly represents that: the most culturally elitist President in generations, a man who doesn't even feign to be folksy.
I don't think it's meant in a negative way. I think there's a genuine fear that the Democrats are trying to create dependant voters. I think there's an element of race and age in that view, but that isn't, I don't think, the motivator.
This is at core as to why I'm still a Republican instead of identifying as an independent or even a "centrist Democrat." My positions have honestly not changed much over the years, I was a Republican in the George H.W. Bush mold when he was President and I'm basically the same guy now. I'm deeply opposed to abortion as a moral issue, but am "meh" on it as a legal issue. [Incidentally rumors have always persisted the Bushes are privately in favor of legalized abortion.] I've always been in favor of letting homofags marry, but I do strategically argue the opposite point for trolling purposes because nothing is better than fag-baiting on a message board. I never approved of DADT while I was in the military or after.
Probably the only position I've meaningfully changed on is gun control. I've always been an elitist Republican, not a libertarian Republican, but on the issue of guns I felt people had an intrinsic right to own them and possess them. Constitutionally I felt this was undeniable, so even if I had not felt that way, my originalist leanings (leanings, I'm not a true originalist) would make me argue that even if we wanted to restrict gun rights we'd need a constitutional amendment. I've generally supported mandatory background checks and even gun licensure, but that was about the limit of where I wanted to go. But in the past few years I've come to feel most Americans are too stupid to own guns, and only a small carefully selected minority should be allowed to own them. I'd let anyone who was military, police, ex-military or ex-police (assuming their service wasn't ended for misconduct) own/possess by default and everyone else would need to jump through hoops akin to what the Germans put people through to get guns.
I've always been strongly pro-business, but the Democrats really are too these days, just a different selection of businesses at times. I am in favor of reasonable fiscal policy, to me that means debt shouldn't be allowed to grow as fast as it has been, and we should increase revenue a good bit and slightly trim spending to get it back under control. I reject Krugman/Keynesian nonsense in that regard. But that's honestly the Democrats position on fiscal policy these days (although Obama has strong spend-like-crazy tendencies that the House Republicans have to a large degree checked.) The Republican position is to basically cut and never raise revenue, which isn't workable.
On the balance most of my positions wouldn't be out of place in the Democratic party, but for the fact I think very much that the Democrats are basically trying to buy votes by associating themselves as the party that gives free shit to minorities, women, and the poor (which are mostly minorities and women.) I dislike that, and to be honest I don't think the very poor should be allowed to vote at all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 14, 2013, 08:15:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 07:32:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 14, 2013, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2013, 05:42:25 PM
Don't forget Downton Abbey.
Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey? I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.
Don't know never seen it.
Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.
I am well aware the show is not popular on Languish :P
I was talking about worldwide.
Stupid Brit Bronte porn.
I think Anne Bronte is rather nice. :)
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
My understanding is that there are worries that even if a deal's reached it may not be passed in time due to procedural rules in Congress. Anyone know about that?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 11:59:11 AM
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY)
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 15, 2013, 12:08:17 PM
My understanding is that there are worries that even if a deal's reached it may not be passed in time due to procedural rules in Congress. Anyone know about that?
The Senate is a bitch to move legislation through because of its arcane procedures, you can legitimately end up in a situation where House legislation goes to the Senate and it is procedurally nigh-impossible (without changes to Senate rules) to get that legislation through the Senate without lengthy processes that can't be easily rushed. The reverse is not so much true, the House can pretty quickly pass Senate legislation.
I'm not sure if it's happened yet, but Reid needs to gets his plan passed by the Senate now, and Boehner can then approve it at anytime and it'll be voted on (including last minute.) The reverse isn't true, if the House is genuinely not going to accept the Senate plan, and the Senate isn't going to accept the current House plan, then any revised House plan that isn't sent to the Senate probably
today will likely not be passed by midnight Thursday.
Okay. The reports I've read on Republican thinking (from National Review's Robert Costa who's outstanding) are that the Senate deal will pass, but House Republicans want to amend it. How quickly can the two be reconciled? Or does the compromise between the two have to passed by House and Senate again?
This was precisely what I was worried about in the past few days. Emperor Obama, in his fashion, dismissed the House on Friday and I was worried that might be just enough to get Boehner to die on the cross for his Tea Party caucus members. Boehner is mostly a pretty reasonable guy in my opinion, but he has shown great exasperation with Obama in the past and I was worried the "snub" of the House plan might set us up for something like this. It was in the back of my mind the whole time leaks of the Reid-McConnell negotiations were ongoing, that Boehner may say fuck that shit.
My totally unscientific odds now say:
35% chance - Default / No Debt Ceiling increase on 10/17
35% chance - Boehner opens up a "conscience vote" and a coalition of moderate GOP and all the Democrats get the Senate plan approved sometime on 10/16
15% chance - Some version of the House plan gets passed by the Senate and signed by Obama
5% chance - Moderate Republicans rebel and sign the outstanding discharge petition Pelosi started, bringing a vote over Boehner's objection which gets approved by all Democrats + the rebelling House GOP members (it'd take 15 IIRC.)
Also can the Senate not vote to temporarily suspend the rules?
Lol, Emperor Obama.
10/17 is when the US loses the authority to issue new debt. The real deadline is 11/1, when bills come due that we don't have cash on hand to pay.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 15, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
Also can the Senate not vote to temporarily suspend the rules?
Yes, most likely. Parliamentary rules are pretty fluid in the United States, but the Senate is heaped with tradition. In a dire circumstance we might see something like this. Also note that on rule change votes there basically is not a parliamentary "opening" that would allow the rule change to be filibustered, so there isn't a concern of the rule change being filibustered if Reid wanted to fast track something using such a mechanism.
As for the Senate bill passing and then being modified, that's basically common. When a bill originates in one house, except for a narrow range of exceptions, it usually gets slightly tweaked in the other house, then it gets sent back to the original house for reconciliation. Reconciliation is a much faster process than is passing the original bill. In the Senate, the reconciliation process for a bill that has "came back" with amendments is much quicker than the process where the Senate first takes up consideration of a bill that originated in the House, if you get what I mean.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2013, 12:20:20 PM
10/17 is when the US loses the authority to issue new debt. The real deadline is 11/1, when bills come due that we don't have cash on hand to pay.
Possibly. The market reaction before then would also probably force a deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2013, 12:20:20 PM
10/17 is when the US loses the authority to issue new debt. The real deadline is 11/1, when bills come due that we don't have cash on hand to pay.
Perhaps, 11/1 is the guaranteed default date, as we have ~$60bn in outflows mandated and will have no more than $30bn in cash.
But I believe there is enough uncertainty (I'm guessing based on variable receipts) from 10/17 to 11/1 that we could run out of cash. Treasury interest payments are due on set interval so we wouldn't truly default until 11/1 (and who knows after that point if we engage in prioritization shenanigans) but we might miss expected payments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2013, 12:20:20 PM
10/17 is when the US loses the authority to issue new debt. The real deadline is 11/1, when bills come due that we don't have cash on hand to pay.
Are bills paid once a month? I don't think so, I imagine there are bills paid every day.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 15, 2013, 12:23:51 PMThe market reaction before then would also probably force a deal.
I don't think the market matters when it comes to principles of ideology. We're talking Big Picture stuff here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 12:22:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 15, 2013, 12:21:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 12:19:37 PM
Lol, Emperor Obama.
He's black, therefore evil.
Shaka Brah Obama.
My simple point vis-a-vis Obama is he bears a large portion of the blame for this.
In order of blame, broadly:
1. Ted Cruz
2. House Tea Party Caucus
3. Barack Obama
4. Harry Reid
5. John Boehner
Obama has created several falsehoods, like the claim that to negotiate on this somehow diminishes the Presidency (when it is in fact typical to negotiate over these sort of things), that have not helped at all. He's also maintained long periods of being "above communicating" with the "small people" in the House, which I think has done much to put us here. Harry Reid and his fat mouth in public has not helped at all either, it's not a great negotiating strategy when you know you need at least some people in the House to vote against their constituencies and their public bravado to be constantly spewing insults at them.
I don't blame either as much as I blame Ted Cruz or the House Tea Party caucus, but I blame them more than Boehner who is essentially a weak man victim to his circumstances.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 15, 2013, 12:26:51 PM
Are bills paid once a month? I don't think so, I imagine there are bills paid every day.
Not every day. Saw a timeline, I think in the Economist. Bond coupons are twice a year, SS checks are once a month, I think (you tell me) federal/military checks are once a month. It's not like the US has to pay a cable bill on the 18th then an electricity bill on the 19th.
I'll see if I can hunt down that article.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2013, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 15, 2013, 12:26:51 PM
Are bills paid once a month? I don't think so, I imagine there are bills paid every day.
Not every day. Saw a timeline, I think in the Economist. Bond coupons are twice a year, SS checks are once a month, I think (you tell me) federal/military checks are once a month. It's not like the US has to pay a cable bill on the 18th then an electricity bill on the 19th.
I'll see if I can hunt down that article.
Coupons are twice a year, but they are issued all the time so we most likely have some coming due every week or so.
Ex we recently had 2, 5, and 7 year notes settled on 9/3, 3 and 10 year notes and 30 year bond settled on 9/16, 10 year TIPS settled on 9/30. We also issue weekly duration bills all the time. Like we just sold some 14 week bills with a settlement date of 11/7, 10/24 etc. So most likely similar issues from a few months back will have payments due throughout the month.
I don't think that there is a solution to this problem that Boehner isn't capable of fucking up. I agree that the Senate needs to act now, because Boehner probably isn't capable of acting until forced into it.
It would be glorious to see Republican rebels shove a discharge petition up Boehner's ass, but that isn't going to happen. That would be a vote of no confidence, and thus to nakedly honest for current US politics.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2013, 12:36:09 PM
I don't think that there is a solution to this problem that Boehner isn't capable of fucking up. I agree that the Senate needs to act now, because Boehner probably isn't capable of acting until forced into it.
It would be glorious to see Republican rebels shove a discharge petition up Boehner's ass, but that isn't going to happen. That would be a vote of no confidence, and thus to nakedly honest for current US politics.
It's easy to blame Boehner but I list him last on my list of blame precisely because he is so weak. Boehner's weakness with his caucus is well known, and honestly needs to be considered by the other parties to the negotiations. Similar to how Kennedy considered Khruschev's position vis-a-vis the politburo in the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations.
Is it too much to ask that someone to be the adult in the Republican party.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2013, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 15, 2013, 12:26:51 PM
Are bills paid once a month? I don't think so, I imagine there are bills paid every day.
Not every day. Saw a timeline, I think in the Economist. Bond coupons are twice a year, SS checks are once a month, I think (you tell me) federal/military checks are once a month. It's not like the US has to pay a cable bill on the 18th then an electricity bill on the 19th.
I'll see if I can hunt down that article.
Does not compute.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2013, 12:39:14 PM
Is it too much to ask that someone to be the adult in the Republican party.
There might exist somewhere a Republican member of the House willing to get crucified by the Tea Party to save the country. I'm not convinced Boehner is that guy. He has stuck himself out there before, when he voted with only 85 members of his caucus to approve the legislation preventing the Fiscal Cliff, for example. But he could at least hide behind the fact he was preventing some portion of automatic tax increases with that.
Kennedy's advisers probably included people who didn't think they should give a fuck about Khruschev's domestic problems with the politburo. But Kennedy and IIRC McNamara understood that Khruschev was the guy they were negotiating with, and whatever "should" be their concerns K wasn't doing something that got him deposed and sent to retire in Siberia. I wouldn't bet the future of the country and the world economy on John Boehner being willing to go to Siberia just because Democrats are doing better in the national Gallup poll and feel they have "won" this battle. Maybe the narrow shoulders of John Boehner will surprise us, but if I was in the White House I'd be leery of staking so much on them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 15, 2013, 12:37:35 PM
It's easy to blame Boehner but I list him last on my list of blame precisely because he is so weak. Boehner's weakness with his caucus is well known, and honestly needs to be considered by the other parties to the negotiations. Similar to how Kennedy considered Khruschev's position vis-a-vis the politburo in the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations.
Weakness isn't an excuse, its a weakness. Excusing stupidity because of weakness lets Reid and Pelosi off the hook for all the horrible shit that got mixed into what started out as a fairly decent (though horribly inadequate) original health care reform.
I should also note accepting a two-year delay of the medical device tax is a win. It's something that many Democrats want and it avoids any of the various things Republicans wanted at the beginning of all of this (defund Obamacare, delay the individual mandate etc.)
During the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, Obama took the automatic revenue increases "off the table" as a concession, because as he said "I'm getting those regardless." Well, in this scenario the continuing sequester cuts (which many Dems point to as a concession on their side) are things the House GOP "is getting regardless." It's not entirely reasonable to expect in this environment that the House GOP is going to approve either a CR or a debt limit increase with no current concession. Does it seem unfair? Well, go complain to Madison or whoever it was that shot down Hamilton's plan to give us a Westminster style government. We wouldn't have this issue if his plan had carried the day.
I admit I see where the temptation has come from. The actions directed against the ACA in the beginning were ridiculous and overreaching, and the GOP has been annihilated in the court of public opinion. But at the end of the day the people answering those Gallup polls do not get to vote in the House, which means while they are promising for the long term prospects of the Democrats they get us not one inch closer to passing a debt ceiling increase or a CR. I had thought for a bit Boehner would repeat his performance from the Fiscal Cliff and just accept whatever came out of the Senate in an open vote (that's what I had hoped, because I feared that was all the White House would accept.) But if he's seriously not going to do that I don't see how Obama/Reid can in good faith not quickly come to some sort of agreement.
Yes, I understand they believed the GOP missteps entitled them to a "win" in which they conceded nothing. But it doesn't appear for sure that's actually what's going to happen. And the reality is you do have to concede things in divided government. There isn't a mechanism where the White House and the Senate can overrule the House and pass things without its consent.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2013, 12:44:28 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 15, 2013, 12:37:35 PM
It's easy to blame Boehner but I list him last on my list of blame precisely because he is so weak. Boehner's weakness with his caucus is well known, and honestly needs to be considered by the other parties to the negotiations. Similar to how Kennedy considered Khruschev's position vis-a-vis the politburo in the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations.
Weakness isn't an excuse, its a weakness. Excusing stupidity because of weakness lets Reid and Pelosi off the hook for all the horrible shit that got mixed into what started out as a fairly decent (though horribly inadequate) original health care reform.
I'm not in a position to excuse/not-excuse Boehner. I'm just looking at cause-effect. Boehner is weak, and that is going to color what he can do. If you're on the other side of the negotiating table and you don't take that into account, you may end up not getting a deal. The Speakership has never been a dictatorship ala a Westminster system, the closest it came was probably the early 20th century. The reason Pelosi was never able to get more far reaching health care reform is because their majority in the House was built on blue dog DINOs who only barely supported health care reform at all. There isn't some magical ability Pelosi had to change that fact and get say, an actual public option passed.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 15, 2013, 12:28:40 PM
Obama has created several falsehoods, like the claim that to negotiate on this somehow diminishes the Presidency (when it is in fact typical to negotiate over these sort of things), that have not helped at all. He's also maintained long periods of being "above communicating" with the "small people" in the House, which I think has done much to put us here.
Oh, bullshit. #1, there's nothing to negotiate regarding the ACA in the first place, and #2, he was absolutely right when it came to the bullshit attempt early in the shutdown to fund individual elements of the government
a la carte. Imagine setting that budgetary precedent for future presidents, he was right on point with that.
#3, the very "small people" in the House you think he's imperious to think he's an illegitimate President that isn't even a United States citizen in the first fucking place, the same fucks that have been demanding his birth certificate for 5 years, or shouting him down in an address to Congress. "Small people", my black ass.
Turning the debt ceiling from a procedural act of basic governmental accounting into an ideological circle jerk is all on the GOP debt fetishists. You want to argue the debt, the debt ceiling's not where it's done.
It will be interesting to see how the medical devices tax side story plays out. CNN aired the WH press conference today, and there were a number of questions (at one point Carney muttered, "I've answered this question three times now") about whether a repeal (delay?) of the tax was an *administration* proposal. Carney flatly denied it, but I think he let a hint slip when he explained the president's position is once government is reopen, and the debt ceiling lifted, then he's willing to entertain any constructive proposals to improve Obamacare. "Such as a repeal of the medical devices tax."
So that looks like the offer being floated. Fund government, lift ceiling, after that's done Boehner gets device tax as a fig leaf, in a separate bill.
Yi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-debt-ceiling/
QuoteSo what happens on Oct. 17? Is that doomsday?
It's hard to say. At some point after Oct. 17, the federal government will only bring in enough tax revenue to pay about 68 percent of its bills for the coming month, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center. (More precisely, the government will bring in roughly $222 billion in taxes and owe roughly $328 billion between Oct. 18 and Nov. 15.)
The first missed payment won't necessarily happen right on Oct. 17, but it would likely happen soon thereafter. The government typically spends a few billion dollars per day on various items. And it will also face these large outlays in the coming weeks:
pretty chart with dates goes here. ;)
Many analysts think that Nov. 1 is the real "doomsday" date. It's unlikely the government will be able to make that $58 billion payment for Social Security, Medicare, military pay, and other benefits without being able to borrow more money.
Thats what I thought, treasury pays debt 24/7.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 12:55:20 PMOh, bullshit. #1, there's nothing to negotiate regarding the ACA in the first place, and
The House GOP is essentially getting nothing out of a CR or a debt-ceiling increase. So if portions of the ACA are what they want, then it's certainly an area of negotiation. The idea that previously passed legislation is "off limits" from budget and debt-limit negotiations is questionable and out of sync with history.
I agree that the initial GOP demands represented retarded overreach.
Quote#2, he was absolutely right when it came to the bullshit attempt early in the shutdown to fund individual elements of the government a la carte. Imagine setting that budgetary precedent for future presidents, he was right on point with that.
I agree with declining to fund stuff ala carte. I don't agree with his position that he should not have to negotiate at all to get a CR or a debt-ceiling increase. A CR funds the government, in ages past we'd have a budget and then appropriations. But either way, there has
always been negotiations about funding the government, from 1789 til now. The idea that there shouldn't have been is insane. And remember, this all started with the CR debate, it's only run into the debt ceiling because it has persisted for 15 days.
Quote#3, the very "small people" in the House you think he's imperious to think he's an illegitimate President that isn't even a United States citizen in the first fucking place, the same fucks that have been demanding his birth certificate for 5 years, or shouting him down in an address to Congress. "Small people", my black ass.
Irrelevant. They get votes in the House whether you like them or not, whether Obama likes them or not.
QuoteTurning the debt ceiling from a procedural act of basic governmental accounting into an ideological circle jerk is all on the GOP debt fetishists. You want to argue the debt, the debt ceiling's not where it's done.
Except, it can be. The debt ceiling has been the flash point for entitlement negotiations in the past, for example.
I do think there is a line in the sand so to speak the President needed to draw. He couldn't let the GOP control of the House render him irrelevant and give the Republicans a platform to pass all their policy positions from the House. I agree that if he had made a few minor concessions and the GOP still refused, then don't budge. But he's not conceded anything. I understand why he
started with that posture, especially given the unreasonable demands the GOP was making to begin with. But the fact that he's not come round to any negotiation at all is troubling, and the idea that he doesn't deserve some of the blame for this mess
because of that is ludicrous.
The GOP being dysfunctional and the Tea Party being insane whiny babies doesn't change the reality of the situation. We have divided government, no concessions have been made to the Republicans in the House, and they are demanding some level of concessions to pass things. There is no constitutional mechanism by which the House has to pass stuff just because Obama says.
My preference would be to go back to the practice of raising the debt ceiling when you budget/appropriate, as was down pro-forma under the Gephardt rule, FWIW.
I do think budget negotiations are exactly the time to have debt negotiations, but I think it should have started months ago and never gotten to the point of a shut down. I'm not saying I agree with what the GOP has done in this, but I also don't agree with the Democratic position that the Republican House is required to pass things and should be executed for daring to ask for some concession in exchange for passing legislation that essentially 'does nothing' for them. That position contravenes the concepts of give-and-take at the heart of the system we have.
As for the ACA, I find it unfortunate the medical device tax is where we're talking about reform. The medical device tax is a good thing. I was hoping we'd go with "delay the individual mandate by one year", because that's a truly meaningless fig leaf. Something like what, $95/taxpayer dinged for not getting health insurance (and most low income taxpayers would be exempted.) We're talking a small part of the program. The medical device tax represents like $30bn in revenue that would grow as the price of medical devices (which has vastly outgrown inflation) grows.
Probably the biggest area of the ACA that needs refined is the coverage rules. Pre-ACA lots of insurance didn't cover say, preventive care and routine doctor's appointments. So something they baked in to ACA is compliant plans had to provide preventive care. But they way they did it created a loophole that allows some employers to employ a strategy of offering a plan that covers routine care but covers little to no hospitalization expenses. This is perverse, because it's the opposite of what many traditionally understood health insurance to be, and would still leave people with big bills to pay on their own.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2013, 12:59:56 PM
It will be interesting to see how the medical devices tax side story plays out. CNN aired the WH press conference today, and there were a number of questions (at one point Carney muttered, "I've answered this question three times now") about whether a repeal (delay?) of the tax was an *administration* proposal. Carney flatly denied it, but I think he let a hint slip when he explained the president's position is once government is reopen, and the debt ceiling lifted, then he's willing to entertain any constructive proposals to improve Obamacare. "Such as a repeal of the medical devices tax."
So that looks like the offer being floated. Fund government, lift ceiling, after that's done Boehner gets device tax as a fig leaf, in a separate bill.
While it's not necessarily peanuts in the larger ACA picture, it's an important element of getting ACA costs out of the medical industry. Repeal this particular excise out of the ACA, there will be another excise removal demand next year, and one after that, until all the offsetting costs from the healthcare industries are gutted and the model no longer works.
You want to break ObamaCare, you start with the medical devices tax, and work on another one for next year's brinksmanship of it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 01:09:14 PM
While it's not necessarily peanuts in the larger ACA picture, it's an important element of getting ACA costs out of the medical industry. Repeal this particular excise out of the ACA, there will be another excise removal demand next year, and one after that, until all the offsetting costs from the healthcare industries are gutted and the model no longer works.
You want to break ObamaCare, you start with the medical devices tax, and work on another one for next year's brinksmanship of it.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that half of the funding for Obamacare came from imaginary cuts to Medicare providers.
People and companies have all been receiving their rebates from overcharges this year.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2013, 12:59:56 PM
So that looks like the offer being floated. Fund government, lift ceiling, after that's done Boehner gets device tax as a fig leaf, in a separate bill.
Which gets voted down in the Senate :lol:
I must admit, the battle over the medical devices tax rather baffles me. It's a bad tax, given that it's on sales and not profits, it provides a tiny amount of income in the big picture, and it hits manufacturing (because they can't pass it on), which means it hits jobs.
The only argument I can see against repealing it seems to be CdM's, which is that it is just the camel's nose. Frankly, that's not a very convincing argument.
If giving up that tax is what it takes to get things moving, then that's a win-win.
I dunno, g...a 2.3% sales tax on grossly overpriced and marked up equipment isnt as impactful as the industry says it is.
Shit, we had to bar their vendors from the hospital, since they were overbilling their stock in Perioperative. Even the Orthos said they only need so many $15,000 screws.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 01:19:03 PM
People and companies have all been receiving their rebates from overcharges this year.
wut?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 01:41:20 PM
I dunno, g...a 2.3% sales tax on grossly overpriced and marked up equipment isnt as impactful as the industry says it is.
Shit, we had to bar their vendors from the hospital, since they were overbilling their stock in Perioperative. Even the Orthos said they only need so many $15,000 screws.
The use of the word "impactful" automatically renders your argument void. It is in that class of words like "proactive" that should not exist.
You need to build more bridges across stakehholder silos, AmScip.
During posted office hours, of course.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2013, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
.......
A lot of people project their desires on the Tea Party. It's so easy because they don't actually stand for anything, they have no real shape or form and it's human nature to try to find meaning and patterns in things. It's political pareidolia. They can be defined only by what they are against, and that is Obama.
I'd never heard of "pareidolia" before, and it's a great word. Thanks, Raz! :)
Me neither; it is almost meant for me. :)
Now to work it into a conversation, once I've worked out how to pronounce it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 01:41:20 PM
I dunno, g...a 2.3% sales tax on grossly overpriced and marked up equipment isnt as impactful as the industry says it is.
Shit, we had to bar their vendors from the hospital, since they were overbilling their stock in Perioperative. Even the Orthos said they only need so many $15,000 screws.
A tax on profits would be fine... and is fine, since it already exists. That would catch the effect of the markups and gross overpricing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 15, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
There might exist somewhere a Republican member of the House willing to get crucified by the Tea Party to save the country. I'm not convinced Boehner is that guy. He has stuck himself out there before, when he voted with only 85 members of his caucus to approve the legislation preventing the Fiscal Cliff, for example. But he could at least hide behind the fact he was preventing some portion of automatic tax increases with that.
I think the real question is whether there is anyone with a spine in the Republican party who can call out the Tea Party members rather than allowing the party to die on this particularly inglorious hill.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2013, 01:36:40 PM
I must admit, the battle over the medical devices tax rather baffles me. It's a bad tax, given that it's on sales and not profits, it provides a tiny amount of income in the big picture, and it hits manufacturing (because they can't pass it on), which means it hits jobs.
The only argument I can see against repealing it seems to be CdM's, which is that it is just the camel's nose. Frankly, that's not a very convincing argument.
If giving up that tax is what it takes to get things moving, then that's a win-win.
I agree an excise tax on medical devices has poor tax incidence. However I don't want to decrease any revenue for any reason, so I'd want $30bn in revenue from another source if we repealed the medical device tax.
This whole fucking thing is comical. That screechy cunt Palin at the WW2 memorial yesterday. Like you have cause to be there you tea party twat. The Dem sea hag, Pelosi.....
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2013, 01:36:40 PM
I must admit, the battle over the medical devices tax rather baffles me. It's a bad tax, given that it's on sales and not profits, it provides a tiny amount of income in the big picture, and it hits manufacturing (because they can't pass it on), which means it hits jobs.
The only argument I can see against repealing it seems to be CdM's, which is that it is just the camel's nose. Frankly, that's not a very convincing argument.
If giving up that tax is what it takes to get things moving, then that's a win-win.
It's weird. Both Democrats and Republicans were broadly happy with the idea of repealing it. It would've been repealed. So it seemed like a perfect fig-leaf for the GOP climbdown.
But apparently the House Republicans want to pass a bill so they can give it to Reid to deal with. The conservative Republicans opposed the medical device tax repeal because it's 'crony capitalism' and they couldn't sell it to their constituencies. The leadership and Senate Republicans want it, but it's apparently now out the bill.
Instead the current House deal (which still doesn't have enough votes, though Boehner is trying and it's been changing all day to reach 218) would lift the debt ceiling until February and have a CR until mid-December (:blink:) and the Vitter amendment (dealt with here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359742/obamacare-non-exemption-patrick-brennan ). Again I think the GOP gets too caught up in meaningless symbolism rather than actually trying to advance their agenda a little bit.
Apparently a senior whip said if they can't pass this in the House their message is 'we say to our guys, that's it, we failed to unite and have to deal with consequences'. From what I've read there's a sense that if this fails tonight then the House GOP will fall apart into big public rows very quickly.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 15, 2013, 03:33:09 PM
This whole fucking thing is comical. That screechy cunt Palin at the WW2 memorial yesterday. Like you have cause to be there you tea party twat. The Dem sea hag, Pelosi.....
I still cruise with Cruz and all, but I did get a kick out of him being there with Palin, criticizing Obama for politicizing national monuments.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 15, 2013, 03:33:09 PM
This whole fucking thing is comical. That screechy cunt Palin at the WW2 memorial yesterday. Like you have cause to be there you tea party twat. The Dem sea hag, Pelosi.....
America should decommission it's stadiums and grandstands, it clearly has a talented generation of politicians who have no need of them.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2013, 03:59:47 PM
I still cruise with Cruz and all, but I did get a kick out of him being there with Palin, criticizing Obama for politicizing national monuments.
Apparently the biggest applause lines at Palin's rally for Lonegan were when she had a go at Karl Rove and other establishment Republicans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 11:59:11 AM
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
I do need your civil war! Yeah!
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:27:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 11:59:11 AM
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
I do need your civil war! Yeah!
I have plenty of ammo. :P Do you?
I'm holding out for my Obamaguns.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 15, 2013, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:27:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 11:59:11 AM
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
I do need your civil war! Yeah!
I have plenty of ammo. :P Do you?
I doubt that will help much when a modern, organized military drops a laser-guided bomb on your house, Johnny Reb.
Apparently no vote tonight in the House:
QuoteHouse GOP May Cancel Vote
By Robert Costa
October 15, 2013 6:06 PM
My sources tell me House Republicans will likely postpone tonight's vote on their plan to end the fiscal impasse. "The votes aren't there," says a leadership aide. "We've been amending the bill all day, but we've been unable to get people around this strategy."
This development leaves Speaker John Boehner with few options as Thursday's debt-ceiling deadline nears, and it throws the action back toward the Senate, which has been working on a bipartisan package.
There were late afternoon meetings between the leadership and the conservatives which apparently ended that. Probably they were hurt by Heritage's public calls against the leadership's plan. It was never formally whipped but there just wasn't enough support :mellow:
I think Preppers are probably heading for onanistic oblivion.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2013, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 15, 2013, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:27:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 11:59:11 AM
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
I do need your civil war! Yeah!
I have plenty of ammo. :P Do you?
I doubt that will help much when a modern, organized military drops a laser-guided bomb on your house, Johnny Reb.
American Spring
Quote from: 11B4V on October 15, 2013, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:27:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 11:59:11 AM
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
I do need your civil war! Yeah!
I have plenty of ammo. :P Do you?
You remember all those times I made fun of you. Well. I apologize.
So it's back in the Senate. They'd paused negotiations but say they're now 'progressing well' - which is good.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 15, 2013, 05:44:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2013, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 15, 2013, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:27:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2013, 11:59:11 AM
This is so awesome. We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us. :nelson: :nelson: :nelson:
I do need your civil war! Yeah!
I have plenty of ammo. :P Do you?
I doubt that will help much when a modern, organized military drops a laser-guided bomb on your house, Johnny Reb.
American Spring
Sarin will clear that right up.
Cal had a supply of Ammo but he left his in a bucket of water.
MAH SHOOTY THINGYS
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:32:51 PM
I'm holding out for my Obamaguns.
"The one with the rifle shoots. The one with the ammo follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots."
Enjoy, comrade.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2013, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:32:51 PM
I'm holding out for my Obamaguns.
"The one with the rifle shoots. The one with the ammo follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots."
Enjoy, comrade.
They still did better then the Germans in that battle if I recall correctly.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2013, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:32:51 PM
I'm holding out for my Obamaguns.
"The one with the rifle shoots. The one with the ammo follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots."
Enjoy, comrade.
We did this routine already!
All kidding aside, I live within walking distance of Fort Jackson. I'm fine.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
Cal had a supply of Ammo but he left his in a bucket of water.
MAH SHOOTY THINGYS
Wrong. It's in my nightstand. Hundreds and hundreds of rounds of it. :menace:
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2013, 07:28:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
Cal had a supply of Ammo but he left his in a bucket of water.
MAH SHOOTY THINGYS
Wrong. It's in my nightstand. Hundreds and hundreds of rounds of it. :menace:
MAH LUBRICANT
Quote from: Razgovory on October 15, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2013, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 04:32:51 PM
I'm holding out for my Obamaguns.
"The one with the rifle shoots. The one with the ammo follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots."
Enjoy, comrade.
They still did better then the Germans in that battle if I recall correctly, as were the human wave attacks.
Partly because that part of the movie was utter falsehood by that time.
What about the part where Joseph Fiennes drops some Marxist critique on us and says that there will always be those rich... in love. :(
QuotePolitico.com
Debt breach could rock DOD, industry
By: Austin Wright
October 15, 2013 11:01 AM EDT
For the Pentagon and the sprawling defense industry, the worst may be yet to come.
The grim reality is that if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, default could prove more damaging than sequestration and the government shutdown. Payments to the military, defense contractors and veterans would be delayed, among other drastic actions.
"Default will only compound the disastrous impacts of sequestration, shutdown and furloughs," said Chip Sheller, a spokesman for the Aerospace Industries Association.
President Barack Obama and congressional leaders are scrambling to reach a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling before Thursday, when the Treasury Department has warned it will exhaust its borrowing authority.
At that point, the government could be forced to pay its bills using cash on hand and incoming tax revenues.
The problem is that over the next few months, the government is expected to bring in less than 70 percent of the amount it's slated to spend. In addition, tax revenues can be volatile, varying greatly from one month to the next.
"It's not a pretty picture," said Gordon Adams, a fellow at the Stimson Center and a former defense budget official in the Clinton administration.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed optimism about the prospects for avoiding such a scenario, with some senators predicting on Monday a deal was at hand between Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), two veterans of the trenches of tough deals.
Still, lawmakers pledged — and failed — to avoid sequestration and the current government shutdown, both derided as unthinkable until they became realities.
So what would it mean for the Pentagon and defense contractors if Congress fails once again to stave off a looming crisis?
The Treasury Department would have at least two options, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, and one appears more likely than the other.
First, Treasury could prioritize its obligations, paying down the interest on the public debt while putting other bills on hold.
"For the Department of Defense, its bills would stand with others in front of the Treasury secretary and his advisers, and they would choose which bills to pay and which ones not to pay," said Shai Akabas, a senior policy analyst with the center.
Fiscal conservatives have urged the Obama administration to adopt this approach as a way to avoid a default on the debt — an action economists say could spark a global recession.
But Treasury officials have "determined that there is no fair or sensible way to pick and choose" from its more than 80 million scheduled payments per month, according to a report last year by the department's inspector general.
So the second option is more likely.
Under that scenario, according to the center, the department would pay its bills in the order they come due — once it has enough cash on hand. This would essentially mean delaying payments until the government receives enough in tax revenues to cover them.
The Treasury inspector general addressed such a situation last year, citing the department's contingency plans after a fight in Congress in 2011 over raising the debt limit.
"Payment delays under such a regime would have quickly worsened each day the debt limit remained at its limit, potentially causing great hardships to millions of Americans and harm to the economy," the inspector general said.
The Defense Department and its contractors could feel such a hardship before the end of the month since payments to contractors are scheduled to go out on Oct. 25.
But without an increase in the debt limit, the government wouldn't have enough money to make those payments until Oct. 30, according to projections by the center under the assumption the government will run out of cash on Friday and then be entirely dependent on incoming tax revenues.
Benefit payments for veterans and pay for service members are scheduled to go out Nov. 1, which would have to be delayed until Nov. 13, according to the center.
"For the defense industry itself, I think it would be a more extreme version of first the sequester and then the government shutdown," Akabas said. "From a broader perspective, it could be much worse and much more catastrophic."
Sheller agreed.
"Default is unchartered territory for our country and certainly the aerospace industry," he said. "We're now about to send another signal of weakness to our enemies, that America cannot pay her bills."
Adams, meanwhile, said a slowdown in payments to defense contractors could ripple throughout the industry and lead to furloughs or layoffs.
"The fundamental reality is it's a slowdown, and the bills would get paid as the money comes in," he said. "It's first come, first served."
Our patriotic defense industry will continue to deliver the weapons and technology we need to make the world safe for democracy, though, right?
Just watch professor Peter Morici of Maryland university, he's apparently close to some Teaparty congressman, what he said was somewhat 'extreme'.
He also said some of the congressmen were prepared to take it past Oct 17 and implied they had the 'idea' that the US wouldn't necessarily if they started prioritising spending and I guess stopped deficit spending entirely. He criticised Boehner for not putting this idea over. :hmm:
QuoteStunned Republicans React to Canceled Vote
By Jonathan Strong
October 15, 2013 7:43 PM
Referring to his plan to preemptively send the Senate a House-passed bill, Speaker John Boehner told his conference this morning that he'd "rather throw a grenade than catch a grenade." But with his right-wing troops abandoning him again, it was the speaker who was left holding the bomb.
After a day of furious negotiating with fellow Republicans over how to tweak a bill he had unveiled in the morning, it was left to stunned members of his leadership team to confirm to reporters that the vote had been canceled.
"They're trying to work it out," said Representative Greg Walden, the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman.
Pete Sessions, chairman of the Rules Committee, kept in character and put a positive spin on an obvious disaster for the GOP.
Boehner "made a decision that what we're going to do is allow us to take the night and make sure all of our members know what's going on. We're trying to make sure that what we're doing, people know about and they can prepare and study for," Sessions said, going on to pin the lack of action on the Senate. "You know what? We're waiting for the Senate to get their work done. We had no reason to necessarily have to do anything," he added, when I asked him what it says about the House GOP that Boehner couldn't bring the bill to the floor.
"It's all over. We'll take the Senate deal," says a senior GOP aide. Senator Mitch McConnell's office quickly noted to reporters that the Kentucky Republican would be taking back the lead.
A key moment in the fight came when Heritage Action announced it was "key voting" against the bill. Support was already flagging, and the decision made up the minds of many members sitting on the fence.
"People are thinking about primaries, they really are," says a GOP chief of staff.
Although leadership had been working to amend the bill throughout the day to cater to GOP critics, the final iteration Boehner landed on provoked head-scratching among much of the GOP conference.
Conservatives had pushed to eliminate the repeal of the medical-device tax, worrying that it appeared to be crony capitalism benefiting a small business constituency, and to apply the Vitter amendment's language to staffers as well as lawmakers, thinking it appeared hypocritical.
Leadership went along with both changes but added nothing new to the bill. One argument in favor of that, put forward by Representative Steve Womack of Arkansas, was simplicity. Womack said including only one additional provision would have made it far easier to beat the messaging war drum in favor of the bill.
But for many others, the smallness of the "Vitter amendment," coupled with removing what was a significant, if targeted, policy victory, provoked confusion and wrath.
"You ever think you'd see the day where Republicans would demand removing language that delays a tax?" wondered a third GOP aide. "I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone."
The canceled vote was no Twilight Zone episode, however, but something far too familiar. Republicans eagerly compared it to the fiscal cliff's famous "Plan B" episode, when Boehner brought lawmakers into a closed-door meeting in the Capitol basement, said the serenity prayer, and told them the vote was canceled.
The Christian rite accompanying legislative chaos today was Florida representative Steve Southerland's rendition of "Amazing Grace" — "all three verses," said Representative Michael Burgess (Texas) afterwards in amazement.
But Southerland is an undertaker by trade, and the song is normally sung at funerals. It's hard not to see's today's failure as the death of the House GOP's role, in at least this standoff.
Rand Paul is quietly providing conservative cover for McConnell on this. He'll go far. Cruz, on the other hand, will crash and burn.
Also the righties I follow are quite excited about a primary challenge to Thad Cochran. Anyone know what he's done to offend the right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 15, 2013, 09:35:20 PM
Rand Paul is quietly providing conservative cover for McConnell on this. He'll go far. Cruz, on the other hand, will crash and burn.
We can only hope. Mealymouthed MF
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 07:49:30 PM
Our patriotic defense industry will continue to deliver the weapons and technology we need to make the world safe for democracy, though, right?
They're rightwingers, you know :contract: :menace:
Oh, so they'll use the default as an excuse to fire everybody and start arming China instead. Bummer.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 09:58:54 PM
Oh, so they'll use the default as an excuse to fire everybody and start arming China instead. Bummer.
:huh: They're not Bill Clinton.
QuoteAlso the righties I follow are quite excited about a primary challenge to Thad Cochran. Anyone know what he's done to offend the right?
Are we talking twitter feeds and writers you follow?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 15, 2013, 11:21:24 PM
QuoteAlso the righties I follow are quite excited about a primary challenge to Thad Cochran. Anyone know what he's done to offend the right?
Are we talking twitter feeds and writers you follow?
Yep.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2013, 07:29:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2013, 07:28:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
Cal had a supply of Ammo but he left his in a bucket of water.
MAH SHOOTY THINGYS
Wrong. It's in my nightstand. Hundreds and hundreds of rounds of it. :menace:
MAH LUBRICANT
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 15, 2013, 11:23:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 15, 2013, 11:21:24 PM
QuoteAlso the righties I follow are quite excited about a primary challenge to Thad Cochran. Anyone know what he's done to offend the right?
Are we talking twitter feeds and writers you follow?
Yep.
This seems like such a passionate interest of yours that I didn't write off the possibility that you had personal relationships with actual Conservative honchos just to satiate intellectual passion on subject.
:lol: No.
I've ended up getting into Twitter conversations with a few though :blush:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/republicans-say-they-want-to-cut-staffers-pay-heres-how-little-those-staffers-make-today/280588/
QuoteRepublicans Say They Want to Cut Staffers' Pay: Here's How Little Those Staffers Make, Today
As a condition for reopening the government and possibly averting a debt default, House Republicans want to hand Congressional staff a massive pay cut by eliminating their health insurance subsidies. So this seems like a good time to ask: Could Hill workers afford a massive pay cut?
Hardly. MSNBC's Ned Resnikoff points out that inflation adjusted pay has been mostly stagnant in Hill offices for years, with most staffers earning somewhere in the range of $30,00o to $60,000. According to a 2010 report by the Sunlight Foundation, which produced the chart below, only chiefs of staff, legislative directors, and schedulers have seen their salary go up notably since 1990.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2FSunlight_ChangeInHillSalariesOverTime.jpg&hash=cbea1935d15c56b25efc7c45ff00be867bf1dfc4)
There are two big concerns here: class and competency. As Resnikoff noted on Twitter, the less Congress pays it staff, the harder it will be to work there for anybody who isn't independently wealthy. It's bad enough that getting a job on the Hill unofficially requires a stint as an unpaid intern. Just imagine if toiling there meant paying for your own health plan out of pocket.
Which brings us to the second issue: brain drain. Congress already has a revolving door problem, and without some kind of drastic change in the law, always will. But making pay and benefits even stingier is only going to encourage more staffers to find cushy jobs at trade associations and lobby shops. And by cushy, I really mean jobs that pay them something close to what they're worth.
If you're a congressman, one of 535, why the fuck do you need a legislative director or a chief of staff? Wouldn't a secretary and an IT dude in each office be enough?
***Seriously, I don't know.
The LD is the guy who tells you how to vote.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2013, 10:02:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2013, 09:58:54 PM
Oh, so they'll use the default as an excuse to fire everybody and start arming China instead. Bummer.
:huh: They're not Bill Clinton.
Worse. They're Ollie North. :x
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2013, 03:25:48 AM
If you're a congressman, one of 535, why the fuck do you need a legislative director or a chief of staff? Wouldn't a secretary and an IT dude in each office be enough?
That woudl probably be enough for the secondary job, but the primary job of a congressman is to run for re-election. You need lots of staff people telling constituents what a great guy you are in order to get re-elected, because otherwise voters look at the shitty job you are doing and fire you.
I'm ok with them not making a lot. Anybody who would choose a career in politics is seriously disturbed, and crazy people with money are dangerous.
Of course you're OK with anybody not making a lot. You're HR.
Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 03:53:59 AM
The LD is the guy who tells you how to vote.
In which case the LD should be paying you, not the other way round.
Removing staff would probably make Congressmen more reliant on lobbyists.
Quote from: KRonn on October 16, 2013, 07:32:13 AM
Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.
But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.
Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.
Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.
Most Congressmen are independently wealthy.
Quote from: KRonn on October 16, 2013, 07:32:13 AM
Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else.
But everyone else doesn't pay the same under the ACA.
This is just plain stupid.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2013, 08:24:50 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 16, 2013, 07:32:13 AM
Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.
But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.
Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.
Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.
The Vitter Amendment removes health insurance for all members of Congress, the President and VP (and formerly their staff as well, although the latest version I think removes that). They would then be forced to purchase their insurance on the exchange, and further the amendment stipulates that their salaries cannot be adjusted to compensate them for it.
So yeah, it is doing exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.
But it is still a ridiculously stupid idea. It is just legislating pettiness.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2013, 08:24:50 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 16, 2013, 07:32:13 AM
Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.
But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.
Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.
Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.
If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.
Quote from: Gups on October 16, 2013, 08:44:03 AM
If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2013, 08:41:05 AM
The Vitter Amendment removes health insurance for all members of Congress, the President and VP (and formerly their staff as well, although the latest version I think removes that). They would then be forced to purchase their insurance on the exchange, and further the amendment stipulates that their salaries cannot be adjusted to compensate them for it.
So yeah, it is doing exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.
But it is still a ridiculously stupid idea. It is just legislating pettiness.
:blush:
Oh. Well that's what I get for not reading about it before posting. :D
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2013, 09:09:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2013, 08:41:05 AM
The Vitter Amendment removes health insurance for all members of Congress, the President and VP (and formerly their staff as well, although the latest version I think removes that). They would then be forced to purchase their insurance on the exchange, and further the amendment stipulates that their salaries cannot be adjusted to compensate them for it.
So yeah, it is doing exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.
But it is still a ridiculously stupid idea. It is just legislating pettiness.
:blush:
Oh. Well that's what I get for not reading about it before posting. :D
I think it has actually been modified (or re-proposed) several times as I believe in an earlier version it was just targeted at staffers.
Quote from: Gups on October 16, 2013, 08:44:03 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2013, 08:24:50 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 16, 2013, 07:32:13 AM
Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.
But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.
Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.
Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.
If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/david-vitter-amendment-obamacare-98355.html
QuoteThe Vitter amendment has popped up in various iterations throughout the fiscal drama that has consumed the Capitol for several weeks. But aides have long grumbled privately about the potential effects of the Vitter amendment and have warned of a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.
Quote from: Gups on October 16, 2013, 08:44:03 AM
If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.
Unfourtunately the joke is on us, because our Congress ends up filled up with independently wealthy dilettantes, second rate talents (eg speaker of the house as former high school wrestling coach), or people obsessed by power or ideology.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2013, 09:13:02 AM
QuoteThe Vitter amendment has popped up in various iterations throughout the fiscal drama that has consumed the Capitol for several weeks. But aides have long grumbled privately about the potential effects of the Vitter amendment and have warned of a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.
Judging by results, they don't have any brains to spare. :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2013, 09:21:10 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 16, 2013, 08:44:03 AM
If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.
Unfourtunately the joke is on us, because our Congress ends up filled up with independently wealthy dilettantes, second rate talents (eg speaker of the house as former high school wrestling coach), or people obsessed by power or ideology.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapplication.denofgeek.com%2Fpics%2Ftv%2Flist%2Ftvpol.ba.jpg&hash=9e19d97271b5fa567f3bda7da07d57f189798c14)
Pitt the even Younger
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2013, 09:21:10 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 16, 2013, 08:44:03 AM
If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.
Unfourtunately the joke is on us, because our Congress ends up filled up with independently wealthy dilettantes, second rate talents (eg speaker of the house as former high school wrestling coach), or people obsessed by power or ideology.
I suspect that is the nature of the job as much a the amount you pay them (significantly more than MPs get). I think that the best you can do is pay them enough that competent people would not have to take a significant pay cut to get in.
I suspect that the problem in the US revolves more around campaign financing and gerry mandering than salaries.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57607679/government-shutdown-debt-talks-continue-white-house-fights-default-deniers/
QuoteGovernment shutdown, debt talks continue; White House fights "default deniers"
Attempts to craft a deal to end the government shutdown and raise the debt limit fell apart in the Republican-led House Tuesday evening, after the latest Republican proposal seemingly failed to garner sufficient support. The House shelved the vote it was aiming for, leaving Senate leaders to figure out a last-ditch solution.
By Thursday, if Congress hasn't raised the nation's debt limit, the Treasury will have exhausted its borrowing authority and will be relying on limited cash reserves to pay off the nation's debt. It won't necessarily happen at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, and it may take a few days or even weeks for the world to feel the full impact of such an unprecedented state of economic uncertainty.
Still, the White House is furiously trying to drive home the point that Congress needs to raise the debt limit as soon as possible.
"Every day that we get closer to the point beyond which we've never been, which is where the United States does not have borrowing authority, creates more trouble for our economy and uncertainty globally, which has a negative impact on our economy," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.
"The deadline for avoiding uncertainty has passed" already, he added.
Indeed, the global rating agency Fitch said Tuesday that the United States' AAA credit rating is now under review for a downgrade.
"Although Fitch continues to believe that the debt ceiling will be raised soon, the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default," the firm said in a statement.
The statement also said, however, that "even if the debt limit is not raised before or shortly after 17 October, we assume there is sufficient political will and capacity to ensure that Treasury securities will continue to be honoured in full and on time."
A BofA Merrill Lynch interest rate strategist reportedly wrote in a note to clients that the Treasury Department can effectively run on fumes until Nov. 15 before it actually has to default on its loans.
That kind of leeway -- the fact that there's not a hard deadline before calamity hits -- has contributed to the intransigence in Congress. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., for instance, has suggested President Obama is lying about the threat of default that comes with breaching the Oct. 17 deadline, arguing that the Treasury Department could prioritize interest payments over other obligations (even though it would be illegal for the department to make that decision and practically untenable).
"We're not going to default; there is no default," Mulvaney said. "If the president wants to lie to the public, I can't stop him."
So while downplaying the consequences of breaching the Oct. 17 deadline, House Republicans have kept up their demands to tinker with Obamacare before raising the debt limit or reopening the government.
If the debt limit isn't increased before the Treasury Department depletes its cash balance, according to a Goldman Sachs report, there could be a "rapid downturn in economic activity." The firm estimates that after just a month of breaching the debt limit, there would be a 4.2 percent drop in annualized GDP. Most predict that unemployment would rise, interest rates would soar and the world economy would suffer.
"There is nobody in this field who understands how financial markets work and understands what the impact of default would be on the global economy who accepts the absurd position taken by the debt limit or default deniers," Carney said Tuesday. "This is a serious matter."
Carney rejected the idea that a delay of a few days in catastrophic consequences could undermine the administration's warnings.
"What's a risk is even flirting with the idea that we should try to wait until the very last moment before a bill comes due that we can't pay," he said. "This is what some Republicans on Capitol Hill seem to be conveying -- that we can cross that threshold and just hope that we can resolve this before we have to delay a payment."
He continued, "Already, once you get to that deadline, you've entered territory that we've never entered before. And that sends a signal, I think, globally that there is uncertainty about the fidelity here in the United States to the principle that we always pay our bills on time. And that is why this line has never been crossed."
Quote from: KRonn on October 16, 2013, 07:32:13 AM
Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask.
It really is:
QuoteThe Obamacare Non-Exemption
Congressional employees aren't receiving a "special handout."
By Patrick Brennan
The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, has many problematic provisions. Right now one that affects a remarkably small number of Americans — members of Congress and their staff — is attracting a great deal of controversy. It is also causing a great deal of confusion.
The dispute has its origin in the debate over the law in 2010. Republican senator Chuck Grassley suggested an amendment intended to make Democrats balk: Members of Congress and their staff would have to buy their insurance from the health-care exchanges. The amendment explicitly said that the federal government should continue making the same employer contributions. It was not designed to cut employees' benefits, but rather to make sure they had a stake in the quality and efficiency of the exchanges. Democrats actually accepted it, and put it into the eventually passed bill, but without the provision for employer contributions.
The law thus treats Congress and its staff substantially differently than all other Americans. Many Americans who now get insurance coverage from their employer may end up having to go on the exchanges; but only congressional employees are actually forced onto them, with the option of an employer plan prohibited by law. In the private sector, some of the savings from ending employer plans can go to higher wages, which employees can use to buy insurance from the exchanges. (Though that contribution will probably be after-tax earnings, rather than the pre-tax premium contributions employers make now.) It's possible there will be exceptions, but for the most part the market simply won't allow companies to cut an employee's compensation by as much as yanking away their entire employer health-care contribution amounts to.
While Trader Joe's, for instance, is discontinuing its health-insurance plan for part-time employees, the company will be giving each of them $500 a year — which sounds like a pittance, but when it is combined with the subsidies that low-wage employees like these will receive, coverage on the exchanges will actually cost most employees less out-of-pocket than what they got from their employer. There will be no such substitution in congressional offices, because the amendment does not increase the budget for legislative salaries. Some congressional employees would receive tax-credit subsidies on the individual market, like low-wage workers, but most would not.
When you hear about a "congressional exemption" from Obamacare, this refers to the fact that the Office of Personnel Management, part of the executive branch, has chosen to make up for this differential treatment by paying part of congressional employees' health-care premiums on the new exchanges. They haven't been "exempted" from the amendment that forces them onto the exchanges, in a way no other American is.
OPM decided to contribute the same amount to these exchanges that the government now spends on congressional employees' health benefits ($5,000 for individuals, $11,000 for families). This decision was probably illegal, since Congress didn't authorize funds for the plan, as Cato's Michael Cannon explains.
Congressmen and their staff, then, are getting a questionable workaround from the law — but it's from a provision of the law that treated them particularly badly rather than neutrally. The net result of the law and the workaround isn't a "special handout" for congressional employees.
Senator David Vitter (R., La.) says that Congress should pass an amendment to do away with this supposed "exemption." The law would actually layer another regulation onto Congress (and executive-branch appointees, too) that doesn't apply to any other American, by preventing their employer from contributing to their health insurance.
The reason the White House provided its procedurally dodgy solution, which Vitter aims to address, is that passing a fix through Congress would probably be politically difficult. But unless you think every congressional employee's salary should be cut by between $5,000 and $11,000 (or, alternatively, that they don't deserve any employer contributions to their health-care coverage), you shouldn't have a problem with your congressman voting for it. (For one, such a salary cut would make Congress more a place for well-off Americans than it already is.)
Senator Ted Cruz has actually suggested that the former's amendment should be expanded to every employee of the federal government — from D.C. schoolteachers to much of the active-duty military. (Vitter says he opposes this because it is infeasible politically.)
The defense of the provision remaining as is — ending the federal contributions to Congress's exchange premiums — relies on the idea that Congress (or literally almost all federal employees, as Cruz suggested) should suffer the worst possible effects of whatever federal law is passed. That's a much more punitive intent than the original Grassley amendment had.
With the destructive effects of Obamacare looming, this punishment may sound appealing. But do we really approve of the idea in other circumstances? Do we believe that Congress and its staffers should pay the highest marginal tax rates, regardless of income; that every congressman must have served in the military to vote to declare war; that congressional offices have to carry out any and all reporting requirements and regulations they impose on a particular industry; and so on? There are probably better ways to prevent Congress from passing bad laws.
The congressional staffers, D.C. teachers, and other federal employees Senator Cruz hopes to force onto the exchanges probably receive overly generous health-care benefits now. The executive branch's fix doesn't reduce them at all (for now); shifting them onto the exchanges might be a good time to move toward a less generous model. But people who happen to be paid by the federal treasury don't deserve to have the entire value of their existing coverage stripped away, as almost no Americans will experience.
Nearly half the people in Congress have worked, and are still working, against Obamacare. Senator Vitter's amendment proposes to cut their pay in order to make a point — a point based on a misunderstanding.
— Patrick Brennan is an associate editor at National Review.
I swear that KRonn has already been corrected on that point multiple times. That really was a decisive propaganda victory for Republicans.
I was going to point out the hypocrisy of conservative economists who blamed the weak recovery on "policy uncertainty" supporting the no worries approach on default. But then I realized that such persons don't exist. I can't think of any reputable Econ guy of any school or stripe that supports this approach. We are truly in a lunatics running the asylum situation.
(Sorry Raz no insult intended)
If we had President Romney the economy'd be doing amazing though: no fiscal cliff, no sequestration, no shutdown, no threat of a default and, probably, some stimulus in the form of new tax cuts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2013, 11:27:49 AM
We are truly in a lunatics running the asylum situation.
I disagree. Lunatics would have some experience with asylums.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 11:34:35 AM
If we had President Romney the economy'd be doing amazing though: no fiscal cliff, no sequestration, no shutdown, no threat of a default and, probably, some stimulus in the form of new tax cuts.
Nope. The Senate would demand funds for ACA.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 11:34:35 AM
If we had President Romney the economy'd be doing amazing though: no fiscal cliff, no sequestration, no shutdown, no threat of a default and, probably, some stimulus in the form of new tax cuts.
It sets a bad precedent though doesn't it? If these tactics are a political success for the Republicans well soon the Democrats will be doing it to and we will lurch from crisis to crisis for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2013, 11:42:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 11:34:35 AM
If we had President Romney the economy'd be doing amazing though: no fiscal cliff, no sequestration, no shutdown, no threat of a default and, probably, some stimulus in the form of new tax cuts.
It sets a bad precedent though doesn't it? If these tactics are a political success for the Republicans well soon the Democrats will be doing it to and we will lurch from crisis to crisis for the foreseeable future.
You really think they would keep going from crisis to crisis? just push back the bullshit for a few weeks so they can go back to it over and over?
QuoteSenate leader announces bipartisan budget deal.
By DONNA CASSATA
22 minutes ago
.....WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic leader Harry Reid says Senate leaders have reached a bipartisan deal to avoid default and end the government shutdown, now in its 16th day.
Reid made the announcement at the start of the Senate session on Wednesday.
The deal would reopen the government through Jan. 15 and increase the nation's borrowing authority through Feb. 7.
Reid thanked Republican leader Mitch McConnell for working out an agreement.
:D
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2013, 11:42:38 AM
It sets a bad precedent though doesn't it? If these tactics are a political success for the Republicans well soon the Democrats will be doing it to and we will lurch from crisis to crisis for the foreseeable future.
Until something breaks the 50/50 split in American politics I think that is the new reality in America in any event.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 16, 2013, 11:47:20 AM
You really think they would keep going from crisis to crisis? just push back the bullshit for a few weeks so they can go back to it over and over?
Well they are not real, they are totally manufactured. But the uncertainty drives everybody batty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2013, 09:21:10 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 16, 2013, 08:44:03 AM
If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.
Unfourtunately the joke is on us, because our Congress ends up filled up with independently wealthy dilettantes, second rate talents (eg speaker of the house as former high school wrestling coach), or people obsessed by power or ideology.
Don't worry. Enough of them are lawyers that they'll still be able to ruin America.
Quote from: DGuller on October 16, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
I swear that KRonn has already been corrected on that point multiple times. That really was a decisive propaganda victory for Republicans.
I don't think I've said much about any of the recent shutdown and budget squabbles. Propaganda victory for the Repubs, about one, while the Dems have gotten the vast majority of propaganda victories.
I can see from the article posted the correction in how this has been presented. The way it's been presented has been that Congress is getting a special perk, not that something different would be done to them than to anyone else. Just the opposite is the way it appears to have been reported. But hey, like the war on women, making a war on Congressional perks gins up the folks, regardless of the facts! <_<
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2013, 11:47:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2013, 11:42:38 AM
It sets a bad precedent though doesn't it? If these tactics are a political success for the Republicans well soon the Democrats will be doing it to and we will lurch from crisis to crisis for the foreseeable future.
Until something breaks the 50/50 split in American politics I think that is the new reality in America in any event.
The three previous religious and moralist awakenings were broken by the revolutionary war, the civil war and ww2. Wonder what will release the tension this time?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Fd4b1ad824d7c80748618667f2c103b63%2Ftumblr_mtztx7egls1qz5tgbo1_r1_500.jpg&hash=be4c6e8d58796faf846559b1268479cbdd7f15a2)
The site's response: "...No?????????"
:D
You know what's an unjust law? The one that lets the FCC fine the wazzoo out of the networks when anyone says "fuck" on air.
Boehner I believe has given up the ghost according to CNN.
He's dead?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2013, 03:07:49 PM
He's dead?
Shutdown and Debt you git. Arent you supposed to be working on a CM AAR???? Get crackin mister. :)
Quote from: 11B4V on October 16, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2013, 03:07:49 PM
He's dead?
Shutdown and Debt you git. Arent you supposed to be working on a CM AAR???? Get crackin mister. :)
The Bersaglieri stopped for a gelato break.
Damn Italians. :D
Did you guys settle up your bet?
Quote from: 11B4V on October 16, 2013, 03:40:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 03:35:19 PM
Did you guys settle up your bet?
yes
You'll only have yourself to blame when you're lit on fire. Well, you and Raz. :ph34r:
Good for you Raz. You are now a better man than Seedy.
Before, hope you realize that's his med money for November.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 03:52:12 PM
Good for you Raz. You are now a better man than Seedy.
Before, hope you realize that's his med money for November.
:face:
It's funny to see the post-mortems of this whole debacle now that it's pretty much over. MSNBC is taking a victory lap while Fox is trying to minimize the scale of defeat the republicans have sustained by talking about how a default wouldn't have affected anything.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 16, 2013, 04:26:09 PM
MSNBC is taking a victory lap while Fox is trying to minimize the scale of defeat the republicans have sustained by talking about how a default wouldn't have affected anything.
It is just so hard to figure out which one is more contemptible.
I hope someone stands up and says "We all look bad here, lets work to make sure we dont look this foolish again."
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2013, 04:31:33 PM
I hope someone stands up and says "We all look bad here, lets work to make sure we dont look this foolish again."
HAHAHAHA.
sorry.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 03:52:12 PM
Good for you Raz. You are now a better man than Seedy.
Before, hope you realize that's his med money for November.
I wanted to pay him, but he said forget about it. First man I've heard of to drop out of a bet after he won. Oh and my meds are cheap. I get them for about three bucks.
So what's the skinny on the on topic? Did the House pass a clean CR and lift the debt ceiling?
Boehner admitted defeat and said he'll let the Senate bill onto the House floor. Cruz said he won't delay the Senate's proceedings.
Funds the government until Jan 15 and raises the debt ceiling until Feb 7.
So about 3 months respite on each issue. :hmm:
Apparently Democrats are happy because it's a longer debt ceiling increase than they expected and the CR goes until just before the next round of sequestration cuts start.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2013, 05:28:34 PM
So about 3 months respite on each issue. :hmm:
That's three more months of Spam and ammo accumulation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 05:29:59 PM
Apparently Democrats are happy because it's a longer debt ceiling increase than they expected and the CR goes until just before the next round of sequestration cuts start.
What's the relevance of the next round of sequestration cuts?
And how do rounds work?
I wonder if the GOP learned it's lesson and will stop doing this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 05:33:33 PM
And how do rounds work?
Sequestration cuts, I think, $1.2 trillion of spending over ten years. The cuts are made, I think, every six months. So over 2014 there's another $85 billion worth of cuts, of which half will take effect February 1.
QuoteWhat's the relevance of the next round of sequestration cuts?
Because it means the starting point for negotiations will be spending at the current level. So one concession the Democrats can make, or something they'd want to be preserved, is to cancel the sequestration of February 1. A clean CR - as with this one - would preserve the cuts.
This is part of the reason the Democrats didn't end up backing Susan Collins bipartisan plan - the CR would've gone past the next sequestration round so those cuts would've been a fait accompli.
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2013, 01:52:04 PMThe three previous religious and moralist awakenings were broken by the revolutionary war, the civil war and ww2. Wonder what will release the tension this time?
It's odd. I think a lot of the best ideas in the GOP are coming from the populist right and I think their sympathies are right. But they've just got this extremist, self-harming style that's unbelievable. It's very frustrating to see.
I think they'll either end up nominating someone completely unelectable like Cruz and suffering such a smashing defeat that the establishment is able to crush them (let's go back to safe, reliable candidates like Dole, the Bushes and Romney). Or they'll find someone who can get the best of their energy and their ideas but temper the madness (maybe Paul? :o) a bit like Obama was able to use the anti-war left without becoming another Dean.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 06:19:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2013, 01:52:04 PMThe three previous religious and moralist awakenings were broken by the revolutionary war, the civil war and ww2. Wonder what will release the tension this time?
It's odd. I think a lot of the best ideas in the GOP are coming from the populist right and I think their sympathies are right. But they've just got this extremist, self-harming style that's unbelievable. It's very frustrating to see.
I think they'll either end up nominating someone completely unelectable like Cruz and suffering such a smashing defeat that the establishment is able to crush them (let's go back to safe, reliable candidates like Dole, the Bushes and Romney). Or they'll find someone who can get the best of their energy and their ideas but temper the madness (maybe Paul? :o) a bit like Obama was able to use the anti-war left without becoming another Dean.
They already did that with goldwater, and that didn't seem to get them anything. The lesson there wasn't these policies are stupid, the lesson was we need to get a better communicator.
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2013, 06:24:39 PM
They already did that with goldwater, and that didn't seem to get them anything. The lesson there wasn't these policies are stupid, the lesson was we need to get a better communicator.
What do you mean?
The Republican view is that they did that with Goldwater and it got them Reagan. Goldwater is the Prometheus of modern movement conservatism.
What are the positive impulses of the Populist Right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2013, 06:24:39 PM
They already did that with goldwater, and that didn't seem to get them anything. The lesson there wasn't these policies are stupid, the lesson was we need to get a better communicator.
What do you mean?
The Republican view is that they did that with Goldwater and it got them Reagan. Goldwater is the Prometheus of modern movement conservatism.
Yeah, that's the point. I'm saying they won't react to a crazy loser candidate by thinking, hey maybe we need different ideas. They'll think they just need a better candidate.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 16, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
What are the positive impulses of the Populist Right?
Less money for deadbeats, less money for pointy headed art, lower taxes, etc.
Shelf: I still don't get it. Dumb it down a bit for me.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 16, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
What are the positive impulses of the Populist Right?
Some of it's about attitude. The conservative right nixed the medical device tax because they didn't think they could sell it to their constituencies because it's 'crony capitalism'. The tax is probably a bad idea, and there's enough Democrats to abolish it anyway, but I think it'd be a good thing for Republicans to be more hostile to crony capitalism.
This is especially the case when the Democrats could, with a little bit of effort, become the party of big business - a nationwide Cuomo-style affair. As that's not implausible it's a good thing if the Republicans are there shouting about big government, big business, crooked deals and corporatism.
On a related note, but with a good policy, DeMint and Heritage are entirely right on farm subsidies. The Republican establishment is entirely wrong. Similarly I think it makes sense to focus on fighting Obamacare rather than the establishment Holy Grail of cutting benefits to old people.
Rand Paul oscillates from sublime to ridiculous. He's calling for reforms to felon voting restrictions, to sentencing guidelines and to and drug policy. He's also prompted a useful debate - though I disagree with him - on civil liberties and on foreign policy. Even Mike Lee's proposed a new Republican tax policy that, from what I can see, would mainly cut taxes for families rather than millionaires which is progress. Similarly Vitter's got proposals on 'too big to fail' banks which I find quite attractive.
What's the establishment Republican party got? Tax cuts for millionaires, cuts to the benefits of the elderly, cosiness with big business and Karl Rove.
I know which side I'm on in that fight. I just hope that eventually the Tea Partiers realise too and stop self-destructing.
QuoteYeah, that's the point. I'm saying they won't react to a crazy loser candidate by thinking, hey maybe we need different ideas. They'll think they just need a better candidate.
I think it's a slight myth by Republicans though. They went through Nixon and Ford and a very moderate Republican party before they moved to Reagan - even then after the traumas of Carter. The response to Goldwater wasn't to support another extreme candidate, but to move to the centre.
As I say I'm not sure that'd be best because I actually think the diagnosis of many on the Tea Party right is pretty acute. I just don't think their solutions or politics are yet.
Senate is voting now, I guess this thing is finally at an end. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 06:40:24 PM
Less money for deadbeats, less money for pointy headed art, lower taxes, etc.
Shelf: I still don't get it. Dumb it down a bit for me.
Right now the Tea Party figures in Congress are coming up with distinctive policies on tax, the financial sector, foreign policy, civil liberties, subsidies and criminal justice. Unfortunately there's also some mentalists in the group and they're not good at discipline. But generally they're a good thing.
The establishment Republican Party are pushing broadly the same message they did with Dole, with Romney, with Bush (2004). The same policies that have failed time and again to win a majority of votes. They look at 2012 and basically say 'once more, with feeling'.
I meant about the timing of the sequestration rounds. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 06:50:23 PM
I meant about the timing of the sequestration rounds. :)
The cuts take place over 10 years, so each of those years there's a 'round' of cuts (actually I think 2 rounds). Cumulatively those cuts will be $1.2 trillion.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 06:52:31 PM
The cuts take place over 10 years, so each of those years there's a 'round' of cuts (actually I think 2 rounds). Cumulatively those cuts will be $1.2 trillion.
That part I got. What is its relevance to the next budget/debt deadline?
The next round takes place at the start of February.
The government's funded until mid-January. So there'll be a dispute over the starting point of negotiations (January levels, or with sequestration) - which the Democrats want.
For that reason sensible Republican proposals - like Collins's - funded the government until February/March so the February round would already have taken place. They wouldn't be negotiable by that point.
Are you suggesting the Democrats would have threatened shutdown/default over repealing the sequester cuts? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 07:02:37 PM
Are you suggesting the Democrats would have threatened shutdown/default over repealing the sequester cuts? :huh:
No :mellow:
Senate passes bill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 07:08:12 PM
Then what's the issue? :huh:
It's a better starting negotiation position for Democrats than Republicans. If not better then one Democrats are happier with.
I was wondering what would actually happen if we really did default, but we'll probably get to find out in a couple more months anyway.
I know it's a common practice in the workplace when you want to get rid of somebody and you cant fire them to make someone's life so miserable that they quit, but I dont think Obama's going to give the Teabaggers the pleasure, no matter how many more times they shut down the government between now and 2016.
Thankfully, our long national nightmare is just beginning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 16, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
What are the positive impulses of the Populist Right?
Less money for deadbeats, less money for pointy headed art, lower taxes, etc.
Shelf: I still don't get it. Dumb it down a bit for me.
That's not really a positive impulse.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2013, 08:50:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 16, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
What are the positive impulses of the Populist Right?
Less money for deadbeats, less money for pointy headed art, lower taxes, etc.
Shelf: I still don't get it. Dumb it down a bit for me.
That's not really a positive impulse.
I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I could see how many people could without them being insane.
EDIT: No offense of course.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2013, 08:50:47 PM
That's not really a positive impulse.
If those are not positive impulses then the only acceptable answer to the question of how much money to give to deadbeats, how much to spend on pointy headed art, and how high to raise taxes is "more."
I would also add individual freedoms.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2013, 06:44:14 PM
Senate is voting now, I guess this thing is finally at an end. :lol:
All depends on how much of a prick Cantor feels like being, since he's now the only one allowed to introduce the budget legislation. :wacko:
And congress approves it.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 16, 2013, 09:35:24 PM
And congress approves it.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/16/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=po_c1
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2013, 09:04:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2013, 08:50:47 PM
That's not really a positive impulse.
If those are not positive impulses then the only acceptable answer to the question of how much money to give to deadbeats, how much to spend on pointy headed art, and how high to raise taxes is "more."
I would also add individual freedoms.
The problem is that deadbeats and art don't comprise a great deal of the budget while a tax cuts take out very large amounts of money. Which individual freedoms are they pushing for that we don't already enjoy?
In an ideal world, taxes would go up and less money would be spent on deadbeats and art.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 16, 2013, 09:35:24 PM
And congress approves it.
As is appropriate a mad farce ends with a flash of lunacy:
QuoteUPDATE (10:30 p.m.): Confusion on the Floor
A House stenographer made an outburst during the vote, and was then dragged off the floor and yelling about "a house divided," members are saying. She was reportedly speaking about God. Members of Congress and staff on the floor were visibly confused and shaken.
The House stenographer, as she was being put into the elevators after being escorted off the House floor, yelled:
"This is not one nation under God, if it were the constitution wouldn't have been it wouldn't been written by Free Masons."
"You cannot serve two masters."
The audio from the floor is here from NPR's Todd Zwillich. (By Elahe Izadi)
Edit: Also all Democrats voted for it, 87 Republicans voted for it and 144 against (interestingly including Paul Ryan).
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2013, 09:42:33 PM
The problem is that deadbeats and art don't comprise a great deal of the budget while a tax cuts take out very large amounts of money. Which individual freedoms are they pushing for that we don't already enjoy?
What does this have to do with them being positive impulses or not?
Tax cuts cost a lot of money so they'll either require big deficits or large spending cuts - that's a negative.
Cuts to the other stuff you mentioned wouldn't save much so you'd still need tax rises or other cuts - at best that's neutral.
Shutdown over? Still going to remember this bullshit at the polls. Actually kind of kicking myself for not knowing the special election was today. <_<
There's another shutdown in a few months. We'll see if people remember that one for next years midterms. If there's any justice, the Republicans will lose the House and the US will finally be able to make owning a handgun a capital crime.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2013, 10:53:45 PM
There's another shutdown in a few months. We'll see if people remember that one for next years midterms. If there's any justice, the Republicans will lose the House and the US will finally be able to make owning a handgun a capital crime.
A'int gonna happen Sparky. ;)
In Democratic America, gun nuts will be burned on sight!
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2013, 11:13:35 PM
In Democratic America, gun nuts will be burned on sight!
Glad there are no "gun nuts" here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/basics-of-the-government-deal-beyond-the-rhetoric/2013/10/16/636029a6-3692-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html
QuoteQ&A: What does the fiscal deal do?
Since the government's partial shutdown more than two weeks ago, it has been a roller coaster in Washington. There was impasse after impasse, heated rhetoric on both sides and talk of an economic catastrophe. On Wednesday, things finally settled down with a bipartisan deal. Here are some basic questions and answers about what's going on:
What's happened?
On Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate reached a deal to open the government and to raise the debt ceiling through early next year. The House and Senate approved the bill Wednesday night, to be followed by a promised signature from President Obama — ending a two-part crisis.
The first part started Oct. 1, when the government partially shut down, closing federal agencies and furloughing hundreds of thousands of workers.
The second part was the fight over raising the debt ceiling, a legal limit on how much the government can borrow. If the limit is not raised in a timely fashion, the government will default on its obligations, which include Social Security payments and payments to investors in government debt.
What will the deal do?
The deal has five main parts:
●Immediately reopens the government and funds it through Jan. 15.
●Raises the debt ceiling through Feb. 7 but allows federal borrowing to continue for a few weeks longer, using special accounting measures.
●Requires additional measures, favored by Republicans, to ensure that people who receive financial help to buy medical insurance under the new health-care law are being honest about their income.
●Sets up a negotiating committee to try to come up with a longer-term budget plan so we don't go through this again early next year. The committee is expected to issue budget recommendations by Dec. 13.
●Provides back pay to furloughed federal workers.
When will federal agencies reopen?
As early as Thursday in most cases.
When will federal workers get back pay?
Uncertain, but as soon as possible.
So with Obama's signature, is this truly over?
Yes.
Why has this taken so long?
There are two reasons.
1. Democracy.
2. A group of conservative tea party Republicans in the House wanted to halt or delay Obama's health-care law to keep the government functioning.
But there won't actually be major changes to the health-care law in the deal?
Right.
Who won, and who lost?
It seems pretty clear in this round of the budget wars, Obama and the Democrats outmaneuvered their Republican opponents.
House Republicans decided to shut down the government in hopes of major changes to the health-care law, but none were in the offing. Senate Republicans reluctantly went along with that strategy — at least for a while. In the meantime, the GOP brand was badly beaten up in the polls.
Prognosticators now say that Republicans could have a hard time winning the Senate in 2014, even though the electoral map is stacked against the Democrats. But the House still looks safe for the GOP.
Meanwhile, Obama and fellow Democrats stuck to their view that they would not pay a "ransom" to accomplish the basic tasks of keeping the government open and raising the debt limit.
Hold up — wasn't Obama forced to compromise to raise the debt ceiling and open the government?
Not really. Obama gave the flimsiest of fig leaves to the Republicans: a promise to do a better job ensuring that people who report their income to get help buying health insurance are reporting their income properly. There were already some assurances in the health-care law, so all the president promised was an additional layer of scrutiny.
So is it all wonderful for Obama and Democrats?
Again, not really. For all the drama, they got little out of this deal. They won't be rolling back the deep spending cuts known as the sequester that took effect earlier this year and are eating away at domestic priorities, including education and research and development. They won't be getting new money to spend on jobs or an immigration bill.
They just got a political win. And they avoided an economic disaster.
What happens next?
Per the outlines of the agreement, Republicans and Democrats will assign lawmakers to a committee to hash out a broader budget plan for the coming year. These joint efforts have not had success in the recent past.
But hope dies hard. For Democrats and Republicans alike, the basic question in the committee will be whether they can find a way to roll back the sequester, which is due to launch a new round of budget cuts in January.
Democrats hate the sequester because it's basically the opposite of their vision of domestic investment. Republicans are more ambivalent, but there are many in the GOP who don't like how deeply it cuts Pentagon spending.
The most likely path to replacing part of the sequester is to instead make cuts to mandatory spending, such as health-care programs or farm subsidies. On a practical level, Republicans and Democrats agree that mandatory spending is better to cut, because it's the long-term driver of debt. But it also has entrenched constituencies, such as the elderly or farmers, which makes such cuts difficult to achieve.
A bigger budget deal — the elusive "grand bargain" — could also be considered as part of the committee's talks. But any discussion of significant changes to mandatory spending usually leads Democrats to insist on new taxes, which has been a deal-breaker for the GOP.
What happens if the committee fails to come to an agreement and we're back in January with new deadlines?
There could be a big, new fight — like we've just experienced — or neither side will want another fight with the midterm elections fast approaching. So they'll just extend everything once again, leaving sequester cuts in place, and the voters will decide what they want come November.
So the GOP did get a fig leaf baked into the bill.
They had to get something. Though how pitiful it is is a sign of how badly this went.
I still thinks it's a bad idea. A dollar in ransom is still ransom.
No. It's trying to provide a graceful way out once a side's admitted defeat. They've given in so make it easy. In victory magnanimity and all that.
Of course alongside that Obama should try and milk this for all the political gain its worth.
But it's not even a dollar ransom.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2013, 12:12:30 AM
They had to get something. Though how pitiful it is is a sign of how badly this went.
I actually feel sorry for Boehner to have gone through this.
Looks like one federal worker won't be going back to work any time soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 17, 2013, 12:26:12 AM
I still thinks it's a bad idea. A dollar in ransom is still ransom.
It's also the pity money you give a kid after something bad happened to them.
Here you go, Sparky, take this dollar & buy yourself some candy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2013, 06:08:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 17, 2013, 12:26:12 AM
I still thinks it's a bad idea. A dollar in ransom is still ransom.
It's also the pity money you give a kid after something bad happened to them.
Here you go, Sparky, take this dollar & buy yourself some candy.
It's nothing of the sort. It's the equivalent of promising to be more understanding of the kid's problems with math.
I'm not seeing any ransom paid. The only "concession" is a promise to do what they were already planing on doing (unless the intention was to allow fraud). Hopefully the Republicans learned their lesson and won't do this again.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2013, 06:32:02 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2013, 06:08:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 17, 2013, 12:26:12 AM
I still thinks it's a bad idea. A dollar in ransom is still ransom.
It's also the pity money you give a kid after something bad happened to them.
Here you go, Sparky, take this dollar & buy yourself some candy.
It's nothing of the sort. It's the equivalent of promising to be more understanding of the kid's problems with math.
:lol: That's better.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2013, 09:48:34 PM
As is appropriate a mad farce ends with a flash of lunacy:
From the video I saw it looked like she has nice tits. :cool:
Quote●Requires additional measures, favored by Republicans, to ensure that people who receive financial help to buy medical insurance under the new health-care law are being honest about their income.
This bit confuses me.
Part of the ACA is required reporting of employee incomes by businesses. It's part of the information that goes into The Hub, an information center and exchange. So, basically, the ACA
already has measures in place to verify employee income, and in Illinois, that's already working. My kids lost state-sponsored Medicaid as soon as Max got a job, even though I forgot to fill out the paperwork.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2013, 10:53:45 PM
There's another shutdown in a few months. We'll see if people remember that one for next years midterms. If there's any justice, the Republicans will lose the House and the US will finally be able to make owning a handgun a capital crime.
You mean like how the Pelosi-Reid Connection was able to do a lot of good? :huh:
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p280x280/525711_10151210142118934_1504065091_n.jpg)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2013, 04:51:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2013, 12:12:30 AM
They had to get something. Though how pitiful it is is a sign of how badly this went.
I actually feel sorry for Boehner to have gone through this.
"Leave this poor orange man alone!" :lol:
Anyway, it's nothing a good cry couldn't fix.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/17/stenographer-snaps-rants-on-house-floor/?sr=fb101713stenographerhouse930a
QuoteStenographer snaps, rants on House floor
Posted by
CNN's Political Unit
Updated: 12:28 a.m. ET, 10/17/2013
Washington (CNN) – Amid all the chaos of the last-minute deal in Washington, there was an unusual moment on the House floor moments after the bill passed.
A House stenographer and well-known employee calmly took to a microphone and began screaming.
"Do not be deceived. God shall not be mocked. A House divided cannot stand," she said, according to a House GOP aide. After a few seconds, she was escorted out by the Sergeant-at-Arms, but an audio recording by Todd Zwillich of Public Radio International captured the rest of her rant.
"He will not be mocked, He will not be mocked, (don't touch me) He will not be mocked. The greatest deception here, is that this is not one nation under God. It never was. Had it been... it would not have been... No. it would not have been... the Constitution would not have been written by Free Masons... and go against God. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God, Lord Jesus Christ."
House members and aides were surprised and unsettled by the scene.
"I don't know, she just snapped," said a GOP aide.
CNN's Dana Bash spoke with several staffers who knew the woman well.
"She's a well-known person, she's a perfectly nice person, a good colleague, somebody who's respectable and dependable, and this is very surprising to everybody who works with her," Bash reported on air.
"The Sergeant in Arms didn't try to stop her because she works there and that's where she's situated," Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told Jake Tapper. "And she actually went up behind the podium where the president speaks from. They thought she was going to hand something to the speaker, and then they realized."
Officer Shennell S. Antrobus of Capitol Police told CNN that officers have interviewed the woman and that she was transported to a local hospital for evaluation. Many officers knew her personally as well, a source said.
QuoteNo. it would not have been... the Constitution would not have been written by Free Masons... and go against God
Will this lead to the rebirth of the Anti-Masonic Party?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.li%2Fi%2Fm14tc.jpg&hash=222dcbe7b78868f7dd2c6aa91b6457f2da2060a4)
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2013, 07:22:58 AM
Part of the ACA is required reporting of employee incomes by businesses. It's part of the information that goes into The Hub, an information center and exchange. So, basically, the ACA already has measures in place to verify employee income, and in Illinois, that's already working. My kids lost state-sponsored Medicaid as soon as Max got a job, even though I forgot to fill out the paperwork.
Yeah, there's a lot of income verification already in Obamacare.
Having shutdown the government for a fortnight the GOP got a provision that the Health and Human Service Secretary will report to Congress on what procedures are in place for income verification, no later than January 1. They also have to report to Congress by 1 July on those procedures effectiveness. That's it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engrish.com%2F%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F08%2Fvictoly.jpg&hash=131997ca389bf3f76ec7772063590b2c3dcfc142)
Maybe managing to shut the government down for two weeks WAS the victory. :hmm:
Quote from: Syt on October 17, 2013, 08:51:33 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/17/stenographer-snaps-rants-on-house-floor/?sr=fb101713stenographerhouse930a
:lol: I thought someone at ranted at the criminal Republicans for having shut down the gvt - that would have been awsome.
G.
Well she has a point. If the Americans had not rebelled or if they had at least kept the superior form of government that is Parliamentary Democracy they would not not be in this mess.
I do agree that the Parliamentary system is better than the one that we have.
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 11:36:13 AM
I do agree that the Parliamentary system is better than the one that we have.
At least for things like passing budgets.
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 11:36:13 AM
I do agree that the Parliamentary system is better than the one that we have.
Do you think life in Alpha Complex could be improved?
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 11:24:09 AM
Maybe managing to shut the government down for two weeks WAS the victory. :hmm:
Of course it was. If you're sent to Washington for running on a platform promising to do everything in your power to stop the Federal government, shutting down the government is exactly why you were elected in the first place.
Any idea where the Republicans will go from here?
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 11:24:09 AM
Maybe managing to shut the government down for two weeks WAS the victory. :hmm:
If the goal with shutting down parts of the government was
1. Increasing running costs even more than not shutting it down (furloughed employees still paid but work not done)
2. Reducing tax revenues due to uncertainty in the economy
3. Increasing government borrowing costs by raising interest rates on short term T-Bills
4. Making the rest of the world wonder if the US is really that stable a place to park money
then I congratulate them on a stunning victory.
That was a serious question on my part. :sleep:
Wait until they win again in Jan and Feb.
They WILL stop the anti-Christ and the worse law in the history of all mankind.
Oh yes, they will.
Quote from: frunk on October 17, 2013, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 11:24:09 AM
Maybe managing to shut the government down for two weeks WAS the victory. :hmm:
If the goal with shutting down parts of the government was
1. Increasing running costs even more than not shutting it down (furloughed employees still paid but work not done)
2. Reducing tax revenues due to uncertainty in the economy
3. Increasing government borrowing costs by raising interest rates on short term T-Bills
4. Making the rest of the world wonder if the US is really that stable a place to park money
then I congratulate them on a stunning victory.
Their stated goal is to undermine the US federal government at every opportunity. So, yes, success.
Quote from: Syt on October 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM
Any idea where the Republicans will go from here?
Probably take some time off, watch some film, and prep for the next shutdown :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2013, 12:05:45 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM
Any idea where the Republicans will go from here?
Probably take some time off, watch some film, and prep for the next shutdown :D
Lol, cant run the option from an ace backfield. Ted needs more backs.
Quote from: Syt on October 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM
Any idea where the Republicans will go from here?
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/10/take-a-tour-of-glenns-visionary-plans-for-independence/
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2013, 11:34:09 AM
Well she has a point. If the Americans had not rebelled or if they had at least kept the superior form of government that is Parliamentary Democracy they would not not be in this mess.
Well if Americans had not rebelled my ancestors wouldn't have a place to flee to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 17, 2013, 12:09:37 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM
Any idea where the Republicans will go from here?
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/10/take-a-tour-of-glenns-visionary-plans-for-independence/
Some of the comments are priceless. Like this one:
QuoteThis just REEKS of L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Aum Shinrikyo, and many, many other deranged lunatics who mix twisted religious fervor with socio-political separatism. This is absolute proof (among other evidence) that Glenn Beck is a certifiable nut case plagued with "Nazi Turrets" and grade-A narcism. It amazes me that his "fans" continue to wallow in his anti-government, end of the world, New World Order paranoid rants. The only thing this buffoon is good for is fodder for late night satire.
Speaking of comments I was looking through some of the comments on the Breitbart sites, where people concluded that the next logical step was to rise up rebellion, kill the city dwellers and turn them into feed for their animals.
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 11:36:13 AM
I do agree that the Parliamentary system is better than the one that we have.
That's why no-one ever suggests the US system for new democracies. The only country that's survived as a democracy with an equally powerful President and Legislature is the US. Chile managed it for a hundred or so years until Pinochet happened.
Normally it leads either to a presidential dictatorship, or a military coup.
QuoteSpeaking of comments I was looking through some of the comments on the Breitbart sites, where people concluded that the next logical step was to rise up rebellion, kill the city dwellers and turn them into feed for their animals.
I do think that part of the change that's provoking a strong reaction on the right is from rural and small town America to a more urbanised and small city America. This touches on it:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/orca-meet-obama/?_r=0
QuoteDavid: This election was mostly about demographics or more precisely about the way demographic shifts lead to cultural and political shifts. Ronald Reagan won with an electorate that was nearly 90 percent white. Now the electorate is around 72 percent white. And the white population is different — more educated, more centered in college towns, more socially diverse, more likely to live in single-person households.
That means they are less likely to subscribe to the cowboy ethos of the rugged individual. It doesn't mean they want to return to the New Deal, but it does mean that the old Republican narrative can no longer win a majority.
Gail: I've always thought the big political division was empty places versus crowded places. People who live in crowded places just naturally appreciate how useful government is. Empty-place people don't see the point. Maybe this is the death of the empty-place vision.
She puts it a bit a strong but I think there is a division and it's another area where the demographics are changing. I also think it's an area where, again, the populist right could make more headway than the establishment right if they sort themselves out.
People focus on changing ethnicity and so on, but I think there's also demographic changes in values and culture which matters and is more difficult to measure but rural-urban is a pretty good divider.
QuoteAny idea where the Republicans will go from here?
I think the right will be looking to successfully primary McConnell, Graham, Alexander and Cochran. Four Senators from broadly Republican states who aren't Tea Partiers. It might work.
Jesus, they're ratfucking themselves. It's wonderful.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 17, 2013, 12:50:11 PM
Jesus, they're ratfucking themselves. It's wonderful.
Until they turn you into feed for their animals.
Oh, and here's where I found the comments. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/16/Congress-Clears-Government-Spending-Debt-Hike
QuoteThe progs will soil themselves when the time comes.
It's a good thing they eat organic crap, because when the revolution begins, agricultural production will temporarily slow down and we will need to feed them to our livestock.
It's like a right wing version of Ide.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2013, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 17, 2013, 12:50:11 PM
Jesus, they're ratfucking themselves. It's wonderful.
Until they turn you into feed for their animals.
:lol:
I can't think of a radical rightwing faction in history that I'm less afraid of than the Tea Party.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 17, 2013, 01:13:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2013, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 17, 2013, 12:50:11 PM
Jesus, they're ratfucking themselves. It's wonderful.
Until they turn you into feed for their animals.
:lol:
I can't think of a radical rightwing faction in history that I'm less afraid of than the Tea Party.
Hassidic Jews maybe. Or the Amish.
They make Oswald Mosley look like Reinhard Heydrich. I don't think they have any positive role to play in American politics other than fucking up the already-corrupted Republican party.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2013, 11:34:09 AM
If the Americans had not rebelled or if they had at least kept the superior form of government that is Parliamentary Democracy they would not not be in this mess.
Obama would have suspended the parliament and ruled by decree? Or they would have had 6 Prime Ministers since 2012?
Quote from: viper37 on October 17, 2013, 01:27:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2013, 11:34:09 AM
If the Americans had not rebelled or if they had at least kept the superior form of government that is Parliamentary Democracy they would not not be in this mess.
Obama would have suspended the parliament and ruled by decree? Or they would have had 6 Prime Ministers since 2012?
In a two party state someone is going to get a majority. The problem in the US is that different parties control different parts of the government.
But even more fundamentally, if they had a Parliamentary Democracy perhaps they would have developed more parties to represent a broader range of views and the Tea Party nuts would be off in a corner with nobody listening to them.
I think the bigger issue is that there's no way to fire any of them mid-session. :glare:
Term limits.
Yes, because it's the old farts that are the problem. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 11:36:13 AM
I do agree that the Parliamentary system is better than the one that we have.
I'm not sure that having boehner as prime minister would be preferrible
Quote from: Viking on October 17, 2013, 03:36:38 PM
I'm not sure that having boehner as prime minister would be preferrible
If we had changed our system of government at some point, I wouldn't expect to see the same people in the seats now.
Article on the Tea Party and how the US came to the shut down. There may be more of the same coming, unless some of the underlying dynamics change.
On the dynamics of the tea-party's levers over the GOP:
QuoteWe argued in many ways that anger comes from alarm on the part of these older conservatives that they're losing their country — that's what they say. That they're the true Americans, and they're losing control of American politics. So that's the grass-roots component.
Now there is a somewhat new development at the top. There's no sense in which the grass-roots protests are a fake, or a creation of big money forces. But we have seen the unleashing of billionaire-backed, highly ideological groups that are outside the Republican apparatus, itself symbolized by people like Dick Armey. And much more recently, by Jim DeMint giving up a Senate position to move to Heritage, and turn Heritage into a much more hard-edged political machine. These guys are calling the shots about what happens in Congress. And that's why we saw the amazing thing of Heritage Action, under DeMint, indicating that it would score a vote for the leaders' proposals negatively — within 20 minutes, [Republican leaders] switched. And that's because they fear now the aroused grass-roots activists, the people who paid attention and vote in Republican primaries. And equally, they fear money coming to challenge them as ideologically impure if they vote the wrong way on key legislation.
What drives the anger:
QuoteBut I don't really think it's helpful to announce that the entire Tea Party base is racist. I don't think it's that simple. For one thing, they're just as riled up about immigration as they are about blacks. There's certainly a worry about a change in the social composition of America. But we found in our research that they also resent young people — including in their own families.
They think young people are not measuring up. That the grandsons and daughters and nieces and nephews expect to get free college loans, and don't get a job, and hold ideas that are not very American in their view — like Obama. Obama symbolizes all of this.
The rest here: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/17/tea_partiers_grave_fear_why_they_disdain_young_people_even_their_own/
The article seems to be saying that old people are useless and need to die ASAP. I agree and have been saying that for years. :showoff:
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2013, 02:57:25 PM
I think the bigger issue is that there's no way to fire any of them mid-session. :glare:
That is covered by the Parliamentary system. If Parliament does not pass the budget put forward by the government, which is the equivalent of what happened here, then that is considered a vote of non confidence in the government and it falls triggering an election.
Therefore we dont have to live with the perpetual game of sillybugger you must endure. If the govenment is not supported it falls and the electorate gets to decide who should be put back in. In this case I suspect the Republicans would be a lot less likely to be led around by the Tea Party minority if they knew they would have to face the electorate on the issue. Sure there are safe seats held by those that would not care. But given the current sentiment in the US it seems likely that under a Parliamentary system the Dems would be returned with a clear majority of seats.
Yes, I've advocated for a Parliamentary government for some time. If you ever look up the "Hamilton Plan" named because it was the proposed form of government port forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Constitutional Convention, it was essentially the British Parliamentary system. Probably the biggest mistake he made in it was he pushed his strong Federalist ideals along with the plan, which made it a non-started in the 13 States era when just a few years before none of these States had any sort of national association with one another but were instead independent entities subject individually to the British. Under his plan the national legislature appointed State Governors, and had veto authority over all legislation passed by State legislatures. If not for that it might have had more traction and maybe we'd have a parliamentary (but federal) system today.
I understand the reasons for the system we ended up adopting. Until the reforms of the mid-19th century the British system wasn't really a great example in any case, and the concerns of the early Americans was tyranny from some overbearing government. That's what they had perceived as their situation under the British, that their concerns were ignored in Westminster because of their distance and lack of representation. So there was a desire to make sure government was built first and foremost with mechanical guards in place to preserve liberty. The British system on the other hand sort of evolved various protections and became more free based on custom and gradual legislation--but to the eyes of the Founders who only knew of the British system up until the late 18th century none of that was necessarily expected and thus I do think the checks-and-balances system we have was a good answer to the problems we were looking at at the time.
It's unfortunate our system is so difficult to change, we probably should have had a second or even third constitutional convention post-1787 to make more dramatic changes to our system over time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2013, 02:51:56 PM
In a two party state someone is going to get a majority. The problem in the US is that different parties control different parts of the government.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Quote from: dps on October 17, 2013, 05:13:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2013, 02:51:56 PM
In a two party state someone is going to get a majority. The problem in the US is that different parties control different parts of the government.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
WAD, yes, but the assumption is that there will be no political parties.
Quote from: dps on October 17, 2013, 05:13:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2013, 02:51:56 PM
In a two party state someone is going to get a majority. The problem in the US is that different parties control different parts of the government.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
So was Liberum veto.
Quote from: dps on October 17, 2013, 05:13:59 PMIt's not a bug, it's a feature.
Absolutely. As I say it's only in the US that that system has managed to survive.
I think part of it is structural. You've got a two-party, first past the post system. Politics is an absolute zero-sum game.
So I think, for example, the Republicans should have worked with Obama on healthcare. I think he would've more or less let them write the law if it managed to provide universal coverage. They could have significantly advanced their policy agenda. But had they done so chances are they wouldn't have got much of the credit, which would've drifted to this post-partisan President and it would've given a bipartisan (the most fetishised aspect of American politics) imprimatur to Obama in general.
To get their policy agenda moved forward and to stop the Democrats writing their own law they should have cooperated. But on a political analysis they were entirely right to try and destroy. I think that's a feature of many reforms lately. The Republicans it seems to me end up in more extreme positions because they're a more unified, ideological party and far less likely than the Democrats to buckle and collapse under pressure.
Personally, I disagree when it comes to term limits; after all, every election is a term limit, and every election there's somebody out there that gets the shit surprised out of them in either the primaries or the general election.
Seniority plays an important part in the procedural aspects of both houses, and quite frankly, if a constituency wants to keep sending the same person back to DC for whatever reason, they should have the ability to do so.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:01:39 PM
Personally, I disagree when it comes to term limits; after all, every election is a term limit, and every election there's somebody out there that gets the shit surprised out of them in either the primaries or the general election.
Seniority plays an important part in the procedural aspects of both houses, and quite frankly, if a constituency wants to keep sending the same person back to DC for whatever reason, they should have the ability to do so.
I don't know I mean would things be so bad if being a congressman wasn't a life long career? After all, they have staffers to tell them what is important and just about ever other political position comes with a limit.
Bloomberg. :cry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:01:39 PM
Personally, I disagree when it comes to term limits; after all, every election is a term limit, and every election there's somebody out there that gets the shit surprised out of them in either the primaries or the general election.
Seniority plays an important part in the procedural aspects of both houses, and quite frankly, if a constituency wants to keep sending the same person back to DC for whatever reason, they should have the ability to do so.
The House in particular is ridiculous. Since they're worried about being primaried/re-elected every other year, they're only actually doing their jobs half the time. I've probably said this before, but it bears repeating. 10 year term for executive branch positions and the Senate, single term only. 5 year term for the House, limit two per customer. There would be some real teeth in setting policy, and Americans might put a little more thought into who they're sending to DC and why if they know they're going to be stuck with the yobbos for a decade.
Term limits are a nice idea, but they'll never happen. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2013, 08:14:26 PM
The House in particular is ridiculous. Since they're worried about being primaried/re-elected every other year, they're only actually doing their jobs half the time. I've probably said this before, but it bears repeating. 10 year term for executive branch positions and the Senate, single term only. 5 year term for the House, limit two per customer. There would be some real teeth in setting policy, and Americans might put a little more thought into who they're sending to DC and why if they know they're going to be stuck with the yobbos for a decade.
Interesting points, but I bet representatives would do their jobs better if they weren't allowed to design their own districts, more so than if they didn't have to worry about term limits.
What are term limits going to accomplish? Send even more dilettante nutso to the Nut House?
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2013, 08:20:56 PM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :)
Who cleans up the custodian's mess?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:23:05 PM
Interesting points, but I bet representatives would do their jobs better if they weren't allowed to design their own districts, more so than if they didn't have to worry about term limits.
Oh hell to the yeah.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:01:39 PM
Personally, I disagree when it comes to term limits; after all, every election is a term limit, and every election there's somebody out there that gets the shit surprised out of them in either the primaries or the general election.
Seniority plays an important part in the procedural aspects of both houses, and quite frankly, if a constituency wants to keep sending the same person back to DC for whatever reason, they should have the ability to do so.
I agree with the man from Baltimore on this one.
Quote from: DGullerWhat are term limits going to accomplish? Send even more dilettante nutso to the Nut House?
Yep, instead of the idiots we have I Washington now, we'd have to replace them with the even worse idiots we have in our state legislatures.
But that's not really the point---Seedy's 2nd paragraph is the point: if voters want to keep having the same person represent them, they should be able to do so.
Clear as mud.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2013, 08:04:01 PM
Bloomberg. :cry:
:console:
Apparently a large portion of New York is now adopting the stance that it was dreadful to live under Bloomberg. Fucking posers! <_<
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2013, 12:10:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2013, 08:04:01 PM
Bloomberg. :cry:
:console:
Apparently a large portion of New York is now adopting the stance that it was dreadful to live under Bloomberg. Fucking posers! <_<
Blood-Soaked Mayor Bloomberg Announces Homelessness No Longer A Problem In New York City (http://www.theonion.com/articles/bloodsoaked-mayor-bloomberg-announces-homelessness,34224/)
QuoteNEW YORK—Drenched in drying blood and limping slightly, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg triumphantly stated this morning that the city's longstanding homeless problem had finally been solved. "Homelessness is over—it's not a problem anymore," a winded Bloomberg said to a City Hall press conference while gripping the lectern tightly to prevent his hands from shaking. "I fixed the problem. Problem solved." When asked by reporters if permanent housing had been provided for the city's 50,000 homeless, Bloomberg assured them the new lodgings were quite permanent.
Quote from: dps on October 17, 2013, 10:24:31 PM
But that's not really the point---Seedy's 2nd paragraph is the point: if voters want to keep having the same person represent them, they should be able to do so.
But like I replied we generally put restrictions on most other political positions so why is Congress sacred?
Aren't term limit generally put on executive positions? Those usually have a lot more power that can be entrenched. Legislators by their nature generally don't, although seniority rules have made some senators from small fiefdom states pretty powerful.
Quote from: Syt on October 18, 2013, 12:11:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2013, 12:10:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2013, 08:04:01 PM
Bloomberg. :cry:
:console:
Apparently a large portion of New York is now adopting the stance that it was dreadful to live under Bloomberg. Fucking posers! <_<
Blood-Soaked Mayor Bloomberg Announces Homelessness No Longer A Problem In New York City (http://www.theonion.com/articles/bloodsoaked-mayor-bloomberg-announces-homelessness,34224/)
QuoteNEW YORK—Drenched in drying blood and limping slightly, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg triumphantly stated this morning that the city's longstanding homeless problem had finally been solved. "Homelessness is over—it's not a problem anymore," a winded Bloomberg said to a City Hall press conference while gripping the lectern tightly to prevent his hands from shaking. "I fixed the problem. Problem solved." When asked by reporters if permanent housing had been provided for the city's 50,000 homeless, Bloomberg assured them the new lodgings were quite permanent.
We need him in Stockholm.
Genuine question. Why is gerrymandering tolerated in the States? Woudl it be possible to pass a federal law requiring that the district boundaries are determined by an independent commission.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2013, 08:23:05 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2013, 08:14:26 PM
The House in particular is ridiculous. Since they're worried about being primaried/re-elected every other year, they're only actually doing their jobs half the time. I've probably said this before, but it bears repeating. 10 year term for executive branch positions and the Senate, single term only. 5 year term for the House, limit two per customer. There would be some real teeth in setting policy, and Americans might put a little more thought into who they're sending to DC and why if they know they're going to be stuck with the yobbos for a decade.
Interesting points, but I bet representatives would do their jobs better if they weren't allowed to design their own districts, more so than if they didn't have to worry about term limits.
They don't get to design their own districts. It it the state congresses that get to design their state's districts.
Quote from: Gups on October 18, 2013, 02:51:06 AM
Genuine question. Why is gerrymandering tolerated in the States? Woudl it be possible to pass a federal law requiring that the district boundaries are determined by an independent commission.
I believe the Constitution grants states the power to decide the manner in which their elected officials will be selected. The same reason we couldn't have national legislation on term limits.
In states where there is widespread gerrymandering, do the voters tolerate it? Is it just an accepted part of partisan politics?
Quote from: Gups on October 18, 2013, 03:42:06 AM
In states where there is widespread gerrymandering, do the voters tolerate it? Is it just an accepted part of partisan politics?
Pretty much. The winning party in the state gets to decide things, so why weaken the party you support by sending a more divided contingent to congress?
I've read there are only 7 states (6 GOP controlled and 1 Dem controlled) that go nuts with the gerrymandering. I've never lived in any of them so I can't say with any certainty, but my guess is that Joe Sixpack doesn't give it a second thought.
Some of our posters are Texas residents, maybe they could tell you.
So (to the extent that its an issue) it;s not resolvable without amending the constitition?
I can only thank Hod that partisanship here (which is bad enough) hasn't quite reached the level where it blatantly trumps democracy.
Quote from: Viking on October 18, 2013, 03:04:56 AM
They don't get to design their own districts. It it the state congresses that get to design their state's districts.
Right, and political parties have no say in the matter.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 17, 2013, 11:24:42 PM
Clear as mud.
He's saying the freshman congressmen are more strident and intractable than the old-timers.
There's a few simple amendments I believe would do a lot to fix our system or at least get it on the right track, without necessarily being as drastic as a full on rewrite of the Constitution:
Amendment: (Modifying the U.S. House of Representatives & General Legislation) a) Members of the House are elected to four year terms.
b) In times of necessity, the President may dissolve the House of Representatives and new elections shall be held to fill their positions within 35 days. During these periods of interregnum, the Senate may pass legislation on its own, as is necessary, but such legislative acts will be temporary in nature and will expire when the new House members are sworn in. In such instances, the newly sworn in membership of the House will have terms that expire at the same time as the current President.
c) Legislation passed by the House must be signed by the President to become law, but it is not required to be passed by the Senate. However, the Senate shall be given legislation passed by the House to review and amend. Non-budgetary bills that are not approved by the Senate will be delayed for one year, after which a motion by the House can forward the legislation to the President for passage without review of the Senate. Budgetary bills cannot be delayed by the Senate, but they will still be submitted to the Senate for review if the Senate wishes to express counsel or advice to the House.
d) Federal Border Commissions shall be created to draw U.S. House of Representatives districts. These commissions will be overseen by 5 commissioners who select a chief officer to run the commission's business. These commissioners shall be appointed to 16 year terms by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Senate shall be responsible for regulating these commissions, however members appointed as commissioners must have formal training in the field of geography, cartography, statistics or a closely related field. Commissioners also must have never held elected office in the Federal Government. The mandate of the Border Commissions shall be to create districts that are of maximal geographic compactness, with the only exception being alterations designed to preserve unity of certain community structures (i.e. cities and such.)
Amendment: (Modifying the Presidency) a) The President may veto legislation, his veto may be overridden by 3/5ths vote of the House of Representatives.
b) The President shall be the person who, on election day receives a majority of the vote in a majority of the districts of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Amendment: (Further modifying the Senate) The Senate shall be made up of 250 members. Senators must be forty years of age to serve, and they shall serve in times of good behavior until they reach 80 years of age, when they will be required to retire. 150 Senators shall be chosen by the States by appointment of State governors (three per state), said States may regulate in what manner this appointment power is exercised and whether or not the respective State legislatures will have confirmation power over Senatorial nominations. Of the remaining 100 Senate seats, 25 shall be filled by Presidential appointment in times of vacancy, 25 shall be filled by selection by the House of Representatives in times of vacancy, 25 shall be filled by a selection of the (remaining) Senators in times of vacancy, 10 shall be selected by majority vote of the chief officials of Select Colleges & Universities as selected by the Senate, 15 shall be selected by the National Academies, with 5 being chosen by the National Academy of Science, 5 by the National Academy of Engineering, and 5 by the Institute of Medicine.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2013, 03:45:56 PM
Article on the Tea Party and how the US came to the shut down. There may be more of the same coming, unless some of the underlying dynamics change.
On the dynamics of the tea-party's levers over the GOP:
QuoteWe argued in many ways that anger comes from alarm on the part of these older conservatives that they're losing their country — that's what they say. That they're the true Americans, and they're losing control of American politics. So that's the grass-roots component.
Now there is a somewhat new development at the top. There's no sense in which the grass-roots protests are a fake, or a creation of big money forces. But we have seen the unleashing of billionaire-backed, highly ideological groups that are outside the Republican apparatus, itself symbolized by people like Dick Armey. And much more recently, by Jim DeMint giving up a Senate position to move to Heritage, and turn Heritage into a much more hard-edged political machine. These guys are calling the shots about what happens in Congress. And that's why we saw the amazing thing of Heritage Action, under DeMint, indicating that it would score a vote for the leaders' proposals negatively — within 20 minutes, [Republican leaders] switched. And that's because they fear now the aroused grass-roots activists, the people who paid attention and vote in Republican primaries. And equally, they fear money coming to challenge them as ideologically impure if they vote the wrong way on key legislation.
What drives the anger:
QuoteBut I don't really think it's helpful to announce that the entire Tea Party base is racist. I don't think it's that simple. For one thing, they're just as riled up about immigration as they are about blacks. There's certainly a worry about a change in the social composition of America. But we found in our research that they also resent young people — including in their own families.
They think young people are not measuring up. That the grandsons and daughters and nieces and nephews expect to get free college loans, and don't get a job, and hold ideas that are not very American in their view — like Obama. Obama symbolizes all of this.
The rest here: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/17/tea_partiers_grave_fear_why_they_disdain_young_people_even_their_own/
Yeah, this fighting over spending is a never ending item now. Both sides are far apart. That's going to continue to be a sticking point, whether Tea Party Repubs or non-TP Repubs. Dems want to keep spending as is, Repubs want to cut back. They haven't been able to get a budget for five years, the Dems couldn't even get a yearly budget passed when they had control of the House and Senate. So this fighting over debt limits and spending is going to continue. That is probably the main reason that Sequestration was put in place. A select committee of Repubs and Dems was supposed to come to agreement, else Sequestration would kick in, which it did obviously.
I think the Tea Party is more about their view of responsible spending in government, smaller govt. I just don't get that the Tea Party is some racist club. They may be annoyed over the mess of immigration but there's a lot there to be riled up about. Cries of racism, black, hispanic, whatever, is trotted out to condemn those who disagree with policy, and it just poisons the debate, IMO.
I think the President's term should be six years. That way he/she can have enough time to get something done before the possibility of ouster after four years. We don't go through the mess of a second term election, where a President becomes a lame duck for most of the second term. With six years a President could still be pushing for his/her policies and probably not become a lame duck so easily.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 18, 2013, 03:51:56 AM
I've read there are only 7 states (6 GOP controlled and 1 Dem controlled) that go nuts with the gerrymandering. I've never lived in any of them so I can't say with any certainty, but my guess is that Joe Sixpack doesn't give it a second thought.
Some of our posters are Texas residents, maybe they could tell you.
I believe that I live in the 1 Dem-controlled state. It's not that we don't give it a second thought. It's more - what can we do about it? That's one of those decisions that we can't really do much about when 95% of the elected (and those running for office) believe that it's good policy.
Quote from: KRonn on October 18, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
I think the President's term should be six years. That way he/she can have enough time to get something done before the possibility of ouster after four years. We don't go through the mess of a second term election, where a President becomes a lame duck for most of the second term. With six years a President could still be pushing for his/her policies and probably not become a lame duck so easily.
Wasnt that in the wings sometime around 1900? I´m not really well versed in early american 20th century history but I seem to recall it was more than just a suggestion.
Quote from: KRonn on October 18, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
I think the President's term should be six years. That way he/she can have enough time to get something done before the possibility of ouster after four years. We don't go through the mess of a second term election, where a President becomes a lame duck for most of the second term. With six years a President could still be pushing for his/her policies and probably not become a lame duck so easily.
I think two 4 year terms works fine.
Since the sitting President has a pretty large tactical advantage in getting re-elected, this pretty much amounts to an eight year term with the chance for the voting public to push the EJECT button if necessary.
I think chopping the election season down would help immeasurably. About a full year of presidential election nonsense is way too much, during which hardly anything useful is done by any politician.
Have the first primary in the first week of July, with the three smallest non-adjacent states by population (screw the Iowa/New Hampshire automatic right to be first). Two weeks later do the next 10 smallest, followed two weeks later by the next 20 smallest, then two weeks later by the final 17. Primaries will be done by mid-August leaving time for the party conventions and the debates.
Yeah, I think there is a LOT of reform needed in how elections are run and financed. That would solve most of the problems people looking for term limits really want to solve.
And I wish the SC would recognize that freedom of speech cannot trump freedom of having your vote actually matter.
The idea that "freedom of speech" is threatened by the super-wealthy NOT being able to buy incredible influence through the campaign process is rather dumbfounding to me.
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
Yeah, I think there is a LOT of reform needed in how elections are run and financed. That would solve most of the problems people looking for term limits really want to solve.
Why do you hate free speech?
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2013, 11:19:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
Yeah, I think there is a LOT of reform needed in how elections are run and financed. That would solve most of the problems people looking for term limits really want to solve.
Why do you hate free speech?
Exactly.
Sometimes the SC just cannot see the forest for the trees.
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2013, 11:20:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2013, 11:19:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
Yeah, I think there is a LOT of reform needed in how elections are run and financed. That would solve most of the problems people looking for term limits really want to solve.
Why do you hate free speech?
Exactly.
Sometimes the SC just cannot see the forest for the trees.
That is one of the weaknesses of a consutitional system of absolute rights. How do you rank absolute rights in priority to themselves?
I have been involved in few cases challenging legislation limiting election spending in this country. The test is, as you will already know from the other thread, different. Here there is no question that spending limits breach the right to freedom of speech. But that is only the beginning of the analysis. The cases always turn on whether the restriction of the right is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic country. That question becomes whether the evidence demonstrates the government's concern regarding the nature of the harm (your arguments in a nutshell) and whether the government can demonstrating that the nature of the restriction is the minimum required to address the identified harm (ie that the limit selected appropriately balances all the interests involved).
In that way the Court gets to throughly examine both the forest and the trees.
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
Yeah, I think there is a LOT of reform needed in how elections are run and financed. That would solve most of the problems people looking for term limits really want to solve.
And I wish the SC would recognize that freedom of speech cannot trump freedom of having your vote actually matter.
The idea that "freedom of speech" is threatened by the super-wealthy NOT being able to buy incredible influence through the campaign process is rather dumbfounding to me.
I'd argue you are barking up the wrong tree. It isn't that the super-wealthy are able to buy incredible influence (like Sheldon Adelson did by bankrolling Newt Gingrich into the White House), the problem is that businesses are able to buy congressmen for the purpose of suporting businesses big enough to buy congressmen.
The donation rules should be simple: neither the parties nor the candidates should be eligible to take money from anyone unable to vote for them (except that candidates can take money from the party they belong to, and give money to the party), and other than that rule, there are no rules. Anyone can spend as much money as they want to on any candidate, but non-citizens and non-human persons can give nothing.
This part in the previously linked Salon article is pretty telling on the Why of all this.
QuoteBusiness interests and hospitals and doctors are grudgingly accepting this vast expansion of resources in their sector, and the disconnect in public opinion is so extreme. If you ask them about the particular provisions in the law, almost all of them are very popular, including with majorities of Republicans. So once this thing is actually carried through — and it's obviously not going to be easy, and it's not clear that the Obama administration is entirely up to it — this law is here to stay. It's not going anywhere. By 2016, it will not be reversible. And by about five years after that, people will be wondering what all the fuss was about.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2013, 12:04:34 PM
That is one of the weaknesses of a consutitional system of absolute rights. How do you rank absolute rights in priority to themselves?
That's probably why no one has a constitutional system of absolute rights.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2013, 12:05:20 PM
This part in the previously linked Salon article is pretty telling on the Why of all this.
If you're pre-disposed to accept the leftist tripe published by Salon, I guess.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2013, 12:05:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
Yeah, I think there is a LOT of reform needed in how elections are run and financed. That would solve most of the problems people looking for term limits really want to solve.
And I wish the SC would recognize that freedom of speech cannot trump freedom of having your vote actually matter.
The idea that "freedom of speech" is threatened by the super-wealthy NOT being able to buy incredible influence through the campaign process is rather dumbfounding to me.
I'd argue you are barking up the wrong tree. It isn't that the super-wealthy are able to buy incredible influence (like Sheldon Adelson did by bankrolling Newt Gingrich into the White House), the problem is that businesses are able to buy congressmen for the purpose of suporting businesses big enough to buy congressmen.
The donation rules should be simple: neither the parties nor the candidates should be eligible to take money from anyone unable to vote for them (except that candidates can take money from the party they belong to, and give money to the party), and other than that rule, there are no rules. Anyone can spend as much money as they want to on any candidate, but non-citizens and non-human persons can give nothing.
I agree with your rule on donations for sure, particularly for Senate and House elections. It's crazy how most of those are now heavily financed by out-of-state interests. I'd like the "if you can't vote for this guy for Senator/Rep, then you can't donate to his campaign."
When you distinguish between spending/donation though, are you saying you want the "can you vote for this guy" test to apply to donations, but there to be unlimited spending on say, political ads? So if I was CEO of Exxon, I couldn't donate to a Senate race in Oregon, but I could spend $50m running TV ads in Oregon on my own or my company's dime?
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2013, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2013, 12:05:20 PM
This part in the previously linked Salon article is pretty telling on the Why of all this.
If you're pre-disposed to accept the leftist tripe published by Salon, I guess.
I am a lefty liberal. There's BS tripe from your side of the fence too.
Quote from: frunk on October 18, 2013, 11:04:56 AM
I think chopping the election season down would help immeasurably. About a full year of presidential election nonsense is way too much, during which hardly anything useful is done by any politician.
Have the first primary in the first week of July, with the three smallest non-adjacent states by population (screw the Iowa/New Hampshire automatic right to be first). Two weeks later do the next 10 smallest, followed two weeks later by the next 20 smallest, then two weeks later by the final 17. Primaries will be done by mid-August leaving time for the party conventions and the debates.
I agree with something like this kind of change! Elections used to be a lot shorter duration, and that was probably only about the 70s or 80s, not talking a century ago.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2013, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2013, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2013, 12:05:20 PM
This part in the previously linked Salon article is pretty telling on the Why of all this.
If you're pre-disposed to accept the leftist tripe published by Salon, I guess.
I am a lefty liberal. There's BS tripe from your side of the fence too.
Wait so you just admitted the article you recommended I read is BS tripe? Poor salesmanship GF.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2013, 12:05:01 PM
I'd argue you are barking up the wrong tree. It isn't that the super-wealthy are able to buy incredible influence (like Sheldon Adelson did by bankrolling Newt Gingrich into the White House), the problem is that businesses are able to buy congressmen for the purpose of supporting businesses big enough to buy congressmen.
Yep, agreed. I'm sure this has a lot of people becoming more and more annoyed with politics, feeling alienated.
QuoteThe donation rules should be simple: neither the parties nor the candidates should be eligible to take money from anyone unable to vote for them (except that candidates can take money from the party they belong to, and give money to the party), and other than that rule, there are no rules. Anyone can spend as much money as they want to on any candidate, but non-citizens and non-human persons can give nothing.
Rules need some serious changing, but look at who makes the rules! Congress! They're not too likely to make changes too significant that it will affect them so much. Enough maybe to make a show to the voters like something has been done.
Quote from: Cecil on October 18, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Wasnt that in the wings sometime around 1900? I´m not really well versed in early american 20th century history but I seem to recall it was more than just a suggestion.
Some people really tried to get 6-year presidential terms in the 1860s, but it didn't go so well.
Quote from: Kleves on October 18, 2013, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 18, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Wasnt that in the wings sometime around 1900? I´m not really well versed in early american 20th century history but I seem to recall it was more than just a suggestion.
Some people really tried to get 6-year presidential terms in the 1860s, but it didn't go so well.
:lol:
I do sort of wish that line item veto could have worked out.
Quote from: Kleves on October 18, 2013, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 18, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Wasnt that in the wings sometime around 1900? I´m not really well versed in early american 20th century history but I seem to recall it was more than just a suggestion.
Some people really tried to get 6-year presidential terms in the 1860s, but it didn't go so well.
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2013, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2013, 12:04:34 PM
That is one of the weaknesses of a consutitional system of absolute rights. How do you rank absolute rights in priority to themselves?
That's probably why no one has a constitutional system of absolute rights.
No, that is why no one should. :P
Quote from: Kleves on October 18, 2013, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 18, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Wasnt that in the wings sometime around 1900? I´m not really well versed in early american 20th century history but I seem to recall it was more than just a suggestion.
Some people really tried to get 6-year presidential terms in the 1860s, but it didn't go so well.
Yeah no shit but this is around 1910ish.
Quote from: Valmy on October 18, 2013, 12:37:24 PMWait so you just admitted the article you recommended I read is BS tripe? Poor salesmanship GF.
He's not the one who posted it, I was.
You can judge for yourself whether it's tripe based on the excerpts I posted :)
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2013, 01:53:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 18, 2013, 12:37:24 PMWait so you just admitted the article you recommended I read is BS tripe? Poor salesmanship GF.
He's not the one who posted it, I was.
You can judge for yourself whether it's tripe based on the excerpts I posted :)
I didn't say he posted it.
And I was just giving him a hard time.
Quote from: Valmy on October 18, 2013, 12:37:24 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2013, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2013, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2013, 12:05:20 PM
This part in the previously linked Salon article is pretty telling on the Why of all this.
If you're pre-disposed to accept the leftist tripe published by Salon, I guess.
I am a lefty liberal. There's BS tripe from your side of the fence too.
Wait so you just admitted the article you recommended I read is BS tripe? Poor salesmanship GF.
All journalism, especially commentary joursnalism is BS tripe. There is no such thing has objectivity.
I'm liking some of these reform ideas.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Fed-workers-in-Ore-to-get-back-pay-plus-unemployment-after-shutdown-228258611.html
QuoteSome federal workers in Ore. to get back pay plus unemployment
PORTLAND --In Oregon, federal workers who applied for and received state unemployment during the shutdown will not have to pay that money back even though they'll also get back pay.
There are roughly 27,000 federal employees in Oregon with many of them returning to work Thursday for the first time since the government shutdown on Oct. 1.
The state employment department says roughly 4,400 federal employees in the state applied for unemployment during that time and the state is still working to calculate the total dollar amount that will be paid out to the furloughed workers.
Tom Fuller, Communications Director for the Oregon Employment Depeartment, told KGW that federal employees won't have to repay their state unemployment because there was never any guarantee furloughed workers would get back pay after the shutdown.
"There's a rule in place. It was designed to protect private employees who had no guarantee of returning to their job," Fuller told KGW. "We have to apply it. We don't have a choice in this case."
"(I feel) fantastic, very fantastic. In fact, it was cool to see everybody just immediately get on their computers, hitting their emails. All I see is people trying to catch up. It's really cool," said Todd Curtis who works with the Bureau of Land Management in downtown Portland.
"Oh God, I'm glad to be back at work because it's so hard to just sit around and do nothing going like, 'OK, what's going to happen today? Do I go to work? Do I not go to work?" Louisa Evers said.
Washington estimates roughly 3,400 federal workers applied for unemployment during the shutdown. But, unlike Oregon, those workers will have to pay back the benefits they collected.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2013, 06:52:55 PM
Here's a shocker: Republican who tries to make government work, treats black people with respect and appeals to the electorate polls well :o
Christie won 21% of the African-American vote and 56% of the Hispanic vote - both more than double what he won last time. There's a lesson for Republicans there, if they want it.
Shit, I hope they don't take it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 05:30:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2013, 06:52:55 PM
Here's a shocker: Republican who tries to make government work, treats black people with respect and appeals to the electorate polls well :o
Christie won 21% of the African-American vote and 56% of the Hispanic vote - both more than double what he won last time. There's a lesson for Republicans there, if they want it.
I would agree as I'm a more center right, more fiscally conservative and more centrist/left socially. Christie works at the fiscal end of things that I like to see. But nationally the moderate Repubs haven't done too well in runs for President. McCain, Romney.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 05:30:58 AM
Christie won 21% of the African-American vote and 56% of the Hispanic vote - both more than double what he won last time. There's a lesson for Republicans there, if they want it.
The lesson is if Jesus Christ ran on the Republican ticket 60% of blacks would vote against him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 05:30:58 AM
Christie won 21% of the African-American vote and 56% of the Hispanic vote - both more than double what he won last time. There's a lesson for Republicans there, if they want it.
It was all personality. His camp was still milking Sandy and making him out to be something like a wartime president. His agendas haven't fared as well.
- the federal courts handed his ass to him so thoroughly on the gay marriage issue that he dropped his challenges.
- we had a minimum wage question on the ballots that passed by over 60%. The whole reason it was there was because Christie vetoed a bill to raise it to $8.50, so now $8.25 is going in the state constitution, with codified cost-of-living increases.
I agree on that point, I think Christie is dangerously close to being "a noun, a verb, and Sandy".
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2013, 09:04:05 AM
I agree on that point, I think Christie is dangerously close to being "a noun, a verb, and Sandy".
I still think of him as the fat guy who saved New Jersey from the teachers' unions.
Quote from: KRonn on November 06, 2013, 08:34:55 AM
I would agree as I'm a more center right, more fiscally conservative and more centrist/left socially. Christie works at the fiscal end of things that I like to see. But nationally the moderate Repubs haven't done too well in runs for President. McCain, Romney.
Republicans have done shit at Presidential elections. They've lost 5 of the last 6. Without the Supreme Court giving them a fluke or an incumbent war President they lose. That's a problem they need to address.
Romney wasn't a moderate candidate. Maybe once in a past life he was, but never on the national stage.
QuoteThe lesson is if Jesus Christ ran on the Republican ticket 60% of blacks would vote against him.
Christie did half as well as Jesus. And that was just based on personality and respect.
QuoteIt was all personality. His camp was still milking Sandy and making him out to be something like a wartime president. His agendas haven't fared as well.
Most of the time politics is about personality, as it should be.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 09:09:08 AM
Most of the time politics is about personality, as it should be.
Politics should be about policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 09:11:40 AMPolitics should be about policy.
Maybe in a Parliamentary system where policies will be passed. Aside from that it's a bit abstract and hypothetical.
But in the US policy's enormously overrated (nothing's more tedious and often wrong than the wonkish end of DC's media). Personality is especially when you're voting for an executive like a Governor or a President. Their character and personality will matter a lot. Whether they just have to deal with a hurricane, a financial crisis or a war, many of those decisions will be made very quickly and very privately. They can assemble a great team of policy thinkers who worry about that. Ultimately what matters is their judgement and related to that their ability to sell and manage.
Even in the UK the reason I voted Labour in 2010 was because of Brown's response to the financial crisis vs Cameron's.
Our disagreement might be semantic Shelf.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 08:37:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 05:30:58 AM
Christie won 21% of the African-American vote and 56% of the Hispanic vote - both more than double what he won last time. There's a lesson for Republicans there, if they want it.
The lesson is if Jesus Christ ran on the Republican ticket 60% of blacks would vote against him.
That's just silly.
Jesus would never run on a Republican ticket.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 09:20:50 AM
(nothing's more tedious and often wrong than the wonkish end of DC's media)
Useful demonstration of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Call it the Niall Ferguson effect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 09:11:40 AMPolitics should be about policy.
Maybe in a Parliamentary system where policies will be passed. Aside from that it's a bit abstract and hypothetical.
But in the US policy's enormously overrated (nothing's more tedious and often wrong than the wonkish end of DC's media). Personality is especially when you're voting for an executive like a Governor or a President. Their character and personality will matter a lot. Whether they just have to deal with a hurricane, a financial crisis or a war, many of those decisions will be made very quickly and very privately. They can assemble a great team of policy thinkers who worry about that. Ultimately what matters is their judgement and related to that their ability to sell and manage.
Even in the UK the reason I voted Labour in 2010 was because of Brown's response to the financial crisis vs Cameron's.
I don't understand why you would think that the personality Brown showed when he presented his policy responses to the financial crisis, compared to the personality traits Cameron demonstrated when he presented his policies in response to the financial crisis, should be more important than the policies themselves. Personality can be important, but the policies pursued seem almost by definition to be more important. If a decision implements the wrong policy, it really doesn't matter whether the leader who made it has an engaging personality.
I'm sure that back in the day, I would've taken issue with some of Hitler's policies, but you can't deny the power of his personality. :hmm:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2013, 08:51:12 AM
His camp was still milking Sandy
LOL, "milking" Sandy. The place is still a disaster zone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 09:06:40 AM
I still think of him as the fat guy who saved New Jersey from the teachers' unions.
Of course you do. Hating a particular object helps with identification.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2013, 11:03:50 AM
Of course you do. Hating a particular object helps with identification.
4/10 :sleep:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2013, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 08:37:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 05:30:58 AM
Christie won 21% of the African-American vote and 56% of the Hispanic vote - both more than double what he won last time. There's a lesson for Republicans there, if they want it.
The lesson is if Jesus Christ ran on the Republican ticket 60% of blacks would vote against him.
That's just silly.
Jesus would never run on a Republican ticket.
Yeah, the tea partiers would never agree to the "render unto ceasar" bit and the rest don't like the feedig the poor bit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 11:06:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2013, 11:03:50 AM
Of course you do. Hating a particular object helps with identification.
4/10 :sleep:
Your thing over unions is surpassed only by your thing for Wall Street. So don't gimme dat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2013, 11:09:45 AM
Your thing over unions is surpassed only by your thing for Wall Street. So don't gimme dat.
I've explained and elaborated the logic behind my "thing" for unions and my "thing" for Wall Street countless times. You repeat braindead slogans which I take exception to, yet I'm the one with a thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 08:37:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2013, 05:30:58 AM
Christie won 21% of the African-American vote and 56% of the Hispanic vote - both more than double what he won last time. There's a lesson for Republicans there, if they want it.
The lesson is if Jesus Christ ran on the Republican ticket 60% of blacks would vote against him.
Not really a lesson if you already knew it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 11:13:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2013, 11:09:45 AM
Your thing over unions is surpassed only by your thing for Wall Street. So don't gimme dat.
I've explained and elaborated the logic behind my "thing" for unions and my "thing" for Wall Street countless times. You repeat braindead slogans which I take exception to, yet I'm the one with a thing.
He did about as Republican Jesus with blacks with that slogan so it must be a pretty good one.
If Jesus were a Republican, he would be King Herod.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 07:12:21 PM
He did about as Republican Jesus with blacks with that slogan so it must be a pretty good one.
After running this post through the Bombe i still don't get it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 07:12:21 PM
He did about as Republican Jesus with blacks with that slogan so it must be a pretty good one.
After running this post through the Bombe i still don't get it.
Well, if didn't forget a key word you would have found it pretty clever.
He did about as well as Republican Jesus with blacks with that slogan so it must be a pretty good one.
Is how it should have read. You had previously stated in this thread that even if Jesus ran as a Republican he'd only get about 40% of the black vote. You gave CdM a 4/10 for his slogan. My post was conecting the two comments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 07:12:21 PM
He did about as Republican Jesus with blacks with that slogan so it must be a pretty good one.
After running this post through the Bombe i still don't get it.
May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2013, 07:18:09 PM
If Jesus were a Republican, he would be King Herod.
Unlikely, for a number of reasons.