What? No government shutdown threads?

[fskimospy]

Their compromise is "devoid of all compromise on their part"? Seriously?

Methinks the only compromise you'd recognize from the Pubbies is if they insist the Democrats take an extra trillion.

The Republicans offered to once again authorize bail-out level spending for another year, without a politically embarrasing (to Democrats) budget, AND drop the demand for repealing Obamacare as a compromise to their preferred position of no debt ceiling increase* and repeal of Obamacare. In return, they ask to extend the same delay given to FOBs and a repeal of the medical equipment tax. The Democrats' counter-offer was "give us everything we want because we own the media."

This is an amazing level of self delusion.

Now you're saying that by not demanding EVEN MORE, that the Republicans have compromised. That's all that needs to be said.

Okay, well I'll just use your logic then. The Democrats would prefer $1 trillion in new taxes, single payer health care, and a pony for every voter. They also wanted John Boehner to be sent to the moon, and for Barack Obama's head to be carved into Mt. Rushmore. Because they decided to stop demanding those things, they have compromised.

In order to remain logically consistent, I expect you to admit the extreme benevolence of the Democrats and laud their willingness to compromise.

You guys have twisted the definition of compromise so far that you don't even appear to remember what the word means.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll be interested in seeing just how well you stick to that point in two weeks, when the Dems are screaming for a debt ceiling increase and the Pubbies want spending cuts to give it.

That doesn't make any sense, of course I would stick to that point. I've always been quite consistent that while Republican demands with the budget in this case are deeply irresponsible, in the end I don't care about a government shutdown that much. If Republicans continue these demands to the debt ceiling, they are unfit to govern.

DSF incorrectly characterized a budget fight as a debt ceiling fight, which was my point.

 

[Chiropteran]

Can't we have the house and senate removed? In any other business (the US government is a business under any definition), when the employees decide to shut down the business they don't get to keep their jobs.

Why on earth are we paying politicians to do nothing useful whatsoever?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

DSF incorrectly characterized a budget fight as a debt ceiling fight, which was my point.

I misspoke and immediately corrected myself. You very well know my intent.

So Dems weren't making unilateral demands in 1987? You can't be serious.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Can't we have the house and senate removed? In any other business (the US government is a business under any definition), when the employees decide to shut down the business they don't get to keep their jobs.

Why on earth are we paying politicians to do nothing useful whatsoever?

Funny, that's something we the people can all agree on :hmm:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We need accountability terribly. If only some people wouldn't keep trying to push a false equivalence narrative. Any ideas on how to get them to stop?

When I called for accountability in office you said we have that every 4 years. That's terrible accountability.

False equivalency? Your party is all about getting what it wants. The Republicans too. You place great faith in party, or at least that's where you invest your hope. Yes there is an equivalency here. You aren't identical but you both deserve to be in control or at least that's how you think. Whatever answers are possible will come from you. The fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom. Okey doke.

You are two halves of the same coin. I'm for letting the two of you fight to the death if need be then maybe someone else can have a chance.

 

[Texashiker]

Can't we have the house and senate removed?

You can remove them.

Next time you vote, vote third party. The only hope we have is to remove the two major parties.

 

[Paul98]

What are the democrats asking for that they can compromise on?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What are the democrats asking for that they can compromise on?

Drapes.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Drapes.

"Dont worry guys. No matter how much we are the direct cause of everything fucking up, the majority of the blame will sit with the right side! Teheheheheheheheheheheh"

 

[Jhhnn]

The doomsayers are going to be disappointed I think. It will go on for a bit and the Republicans will back down. This was a stupid way to force the issue.

Of course it's stupid. It's Teahad, inchoate rage. They just want to burn it down, get a lot of attention in the process.

 

[fskimospy]

When I called for accountability in office you said we have that every 4 years. That's terrible accountability.

False equivalency? Your party is all about getting what it wants. The Republicans too. You place great faith in party, or at least that's where you invest your hope. Yes there is an equivalency here. You aren't identical but you both deserve to be in control or at least that's how you think. Whatever answers are possible will come from you. The fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom. Okey doke.

You are two halves of the same coin. I'm for letting the two of you fight to the death if need be then maybe someone else can have a chance.

You're just continuing to cling to your idea of how things need to work. I don't care about the Democratic Party. I don't like how the US electoral system is set up. In fact I'm nearly certain we've both participated in threads where I've discussed this. Because you're so invested in the false equivalency narrative, you think that opposition to the Republican Party means support for the Democratic Party. You just don't know how to look at problems differently, I guess.

I would strongly prefer a multiparty system of government, but that's extraordinarily unlikely to happen. So, we work with what we have.

 

[boomerang]

The next major milestone is the 15th, that's when the military get's paid. I doubt congress will let the military go without a paycheck so I suspect a shutdown to end before then. If not the 17th is the debt ceiling deadline, and a compromise must be reached before then to avoid financial Armageddon.

The House covered that while they were working this weekend. There will be no change in funding for the military should there be a shutdown. They will be paid. The House recognized their responsibility and they addressed it.

 

[First]

The House covered that while they were working this weekend. There will be no change in funding for the military should there be a shutdown. They will be paid. The House recognized their responsibility and they addressed it.

lol

 

[werepossum]

This is an amazing level of self delusion.

Now you're saying that by not demanding EVEN MORE, that the Republicans have compromised. That's all that needs to be said.

Okay, well I'll just use your logic then. The Democrats would prefer $1 trillion in new taxes, single payer health care, and a pony for every voter. They also wanted John Boehner to be sent to the moon, and for Barack Obama's head to be carved into Mt. Rushmore. Because they decided to stop demanding those things, they have compromised.

In order to remain logically consistent, I expect you to admit the extreme benevolence of the Democrats and laud their willingness to compromise.

You guys have twisted the definition of compromise so far that you don't even appear to remember what the word means.

No, I'm saying that by offering to accept less, the Republicans are attempting to compromise.
GOP: As a condition of continuing to fund the government at bail-out levels, we want Obamacare repealed.
DNC: No. We demand that you continue funding government at bail-out levels with no concessions.
GOP: Very well, as a condition of continuing to fund the government at bail-out levels, we want Obamacare delayed for a year for everyone, not just those contributors and supporters for whom you've deemed it politically expedient.
DNC: No. We demand that you continue funding government at bail-out levels with no concessions.

Yet you feel the Democrats are compromising and the Republicans are not. I'd be interested in knowing how your understanding of compromise differs from the Democrats simply dictating their preferences.

 

[Jhhnn]

Repubs' whining about "compromise" is more than a little dishonest. When they controlled the legislative & executive branches during the Bush years, they spelled it C-o-r-n-h-o-l-i-o.

Grover Norquist went so far as to define bipartisanship as date rape, a form of extortion. Repubs haven't changed their outlook at all.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm saying that by offering to accept less, the Republicans are attempting to compromise.
GOP: As a condition of continuing to fund the government at bail-out levels, we want Obamacare repealed.
DNC: No. We demand that you continue funding government at bail-out levels with no concessions.
GOP: Very well, as a condition of continuing to fund the government at bail-out levels, we want Obamacare delayed for a year for everyone, not just those contributors and supporters for whom you've deemed it politically expedient.
DNC: No. We demand that you continue funding government at bail-out levels with no concessions.

Yet you feel the Democrats are compromising and the Republicans are not. I'd be interested in knowing how your understanding of compromise differs from the Democrats simply dictating their preferences.

You're twisting yourself into knots here. You're attempting to argue that if the Republicans agree to the exact same terms they agreed to earlier this year they have already compromised in a new agreement. Again, if we are using that logic than by simply not demanding a trillion dollar tax increase, the Democrats have made concessions.

I continue to await your praise of Democrats for their huge concession.

How are you so blinded that you can view maintenance of the status quo as a concession for one party but not for the other? (in reality, it is a concession for neither) I see you trying to find some way to mentally twist yourself into it by declaring government expenditures to be 'bail out levels' so they are somehow inherently illegitimate as opposed to being settled law, which is an interesting insight into how you rationalize this.

 

[ivwshane]

No, I'm saying that by offering to accept less, the Republicans are attempting to compromise.
GOP: As a condition of continuing to fund the government at bail-out levels, we want Obamacare repealed.
DNC: No. We demand that you continue funding government at bail-out levels with no concessions.
GOP: Very well, as a condition of continuing to fund the government at bail-out levels, we want Obamacare delayed for a year for everyone, not just those contributors and supporters for whom you've deemed it politically expedient.
DNC: No. We demand that you continue funding government at bail-out levels with no concessions.

Yet you feel the Democrats are compromising and the Republicans are not. I'd be interested in knowing how your understanding of compromise differs from the Democrats simply dictating their preferences.

Hmm... Seems like the dems said they would be willing to a reduced government budget from what they originally wanted.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/hou...uester-cuts-to-avoid-shutdown/article/2536495

Looks like you were being dishonest again or just uninformed.

 

[Jhhnn]

The House covered that while they were working this weekend. There will be no change in funding for the military should there be a shutdown. They will be paid. The House recognized their responsibility and they addressed it.

Senate Dems won't accept defunding of the ACA, so that's just posturing.

Anybody with a lick of sense recognizes it as such, no matter how much Repub shills try to spin it into something else.

It's a very, very bad idea to let the military think that they're some sort of favored uber- citizens, anyway.

What Teahadists are essentially saying is that the only way they'll be reasonable is after a beatdown.

OK, guys, but only if you insist.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Hmm... Seems like the dems said they would be willing to a reduced government budget from what they originally wanted.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/hou...uester-cuts-to-avoid-shutdown/article/2536495

Looks like you were being dishonest again or just uninformed.

The Democrats want to increase spending rather than freeze it.
And they want control of Obama Care.

What are they actually giving up to avoid the breaking through ceiling?

that is a compromise?

 

[boomerang]

Senate Dems won't accept defunding of the ACA, so that's just posturing.

Anybody with a lick of sense recognizes it as such, no matter how much Repub shills try to spin it into something else.

It's a very, very bad idea to let the military think that they're some sort of favored uber- citizens, anyway.

What Teahadists are essentially saying is that the only way they'll be reasonable is after a beatdown.

OK, guys, but only if you insist.

Hmm, a haphazard compilation of thoughts with minimal cohesion, but whatever you say. I don't see much upside to arguing with ducks.

 

[ivwshane]

The Democrats want to increase spending rather than freeze it.
And they want control of Obama Care.

What are they actually giving up to avoid the breaking through ceiling?

that is a compromise?

So saying you want to spend $100 and the otherside says they want to spend only $50, and the other side counter with, "ok we will meet you in the middle" isn't a compromise?

What exactly is the GOP giving up?

Again, and this has been explained to you MULTIPLE TIMES, the current budget debate has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. They could cut the budget to $0 and the debt ceiling would still have to be raised.

 

[fskimospy]

The Democrats want to increase spending rather than freeze it.
And they want control of Obama Care.

What are they actually giving up to avoid the breaking through ceiling?

that is a compromise?

Your post makes no sense. What are the Republicans giving up to avoid breaking through the debt ceiling? Nothing. They are simply making demands.

And please don't say that the Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all, as they are explicitly on the record numerous times saying that is not the case.

 

[Fern]

How is any of what's going on remotely constitutional? Forcing a massive financial crisis and leading thousands of federal employees to be furloughed because the current head of the executive branch isn't willing to meet a laundry list of demands isn't exactly part of the legislative handbook.

How is it constitutional you ask?

Easy. The Founding fathers, in setting up this system of govt (Checks and Balances) designed the House of Reps to be the closest to the peoples' desires/wishes etc. They did this by making them all face reelection every two yrs. Senators get a 6 yr term and are supposed to be the "deliberate" body, 'putting the brakes' to current passions.

Then each body (House v. Senate) was specifically tasked with certain responsibilities in accordance with their design. E.g., the Senate, the more 'senior body' approves presidential appointments and international treaties. The House is responsible for taxes and spending. Those type bills must originate in the House:

According to the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution, all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Westminster system requiring all money bills to originate in the lower house. House appropriations bills begin with "H.R.", meaning "House of Representatives". The Constitution also states that the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills," so in practice, the Senate and House each drafts and considers its own bill. The Senate then "cuts-and-pastes", substituting the language of its bill of a particular appropriations bill for the language of House bill, then agrees to the bill as amended.

So in this case we are dealing with a Continuing Resolution which authorizes spending. That is the power delegated in the Constitution to the House of Reps. I.e., the House is exercising it's constitutional power perfectly in accordance with the intent of the Founding Fathers. Polls indicate the majority of people do not like Obamacare and the House is reflecting the will of the people.

To me it seems like the worst thing possible to happen is for Mr. Obama to agree to even a single demand from the Republicans and set a precedent for bypassing Congress. You might as well just shut the place down and count down to the next debt ceiling for the nominal head of one party to come up with a new list of things to ask the President for.

Once you understand the Constitution you can see it is Obama who is attempting to "bypass" the Constitution and Congress (The House actually).

Fern

 

[Texashiker]

Shut it down, shut it all down.

$10 for a gallon of milk here we come. Hopefully government subsidies will be one of the first things to go.

Shut down HUD, food stamps, free phones, public housing,,,, shut everything down.