What? No government shutdown threads?

[fskimospy]

Funding every other damn thing, even the ones they don't like (of which there are many, BTW)?

Fern

Ooh, so now you're getting back to werepossum's argument. By not making even more demands on top of what they already did, they are offering a concession.

If you can't see the gaping whole in your own logic there I don't know what to tell you. By not demanding that every voter get a pony the Democrats have already made a big concession. The Republicans should respond by adding a public option to the ACA, as the Democrats have already compromised.

 

[Fern]

The Constitution requires that all taxing and spending be approved by all three elected bodies of government. The House is not empowered outside of the origination of bills and even that is constantly and easily gotten around.

If you do not see a problem with the exact scenario we are going through right now repeating itself every 12 months for the rest of our lives you have a very poor understanding of how to run a government. Imagine if Mitt Romney had been elected and the Democrats were threatening a debt ceiling breach unless he put a public option into the ACA. I challenge you to even try to say with a straight face that you would have the same opinion.

It is baffling to me that you want to enable such irresponsible behavior.

Then it's really the Founding Fathers "poor understanding" isn't it?

That combined with Obama's "I will not negotiate" statements. Same for Reid.

I find it humorous that Obama stands there and claims that he will not negotiate about shutting down govt services or national debt and the left portrays this as though he is saying that he will not tolerate a shut down etc. But he's saying the exact opposite: He will shut down the govt over a delay in part of Obamacare. The Dems have spun this well and, as usual, the Repubs can't keep up.

If only Obama could do this in international relations.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

Man I sure wish I could find people to pay for a bill given to me for something I didn't order.

On a related note, how's the $5k checks going for us? Our plan was converting conservatives to Spender way of thinking almost immediately, which is like, infinity times better than anything the Dems have puked up in...forever. When are we going to feel the $5k checks love?

 

[chowderhead]

Ooh, so now you're getting back to werepossum's argument. By not making even more demands on top of what they already did, they are offering a concession.

If you can't see the gaping whole in your own logic there I don't know what to tell you. By not demanding that every voter get a pony the Democrats have already made a big concession. The Republicans should respond by adding a public option to the ACA, as the Democrats have already compromised.

The Republicans inserted a contraceptive "conscience clause" into the Continuing resolution. They are going to try force things that was rejected before since they cannot pass through normal channels. It's a tactic for sure but let's see who the American people will blame for this.

 

[piasabird]

Shut down the government. Yahoo! This is much to do about nothing. So we have 400,000 non-essential govt employees. Who cares?

 

[Fern]

Ooh, so now you're getting back to werepossum's argument. By not making even more demands on top of what they already did, they are offering a concession.

If you can't see the gaping whole in your own logic there I don't know what to tell you. By not demanding that every voter get a pony the Democrats have already made a big concession. The Republicans should respond by adding a public option to the ACA, as the Democrats have already compromised.

You're being silly.

There's a pile of things the Repubs want to cut, and they want the pipeline to go go forward. Those were on their initial list of demands. They've agreed to fund to fund them and dropped the pipeline request.

Bringing "ponys' and such into this makes you look silly. Those others are serious issues and well within the constitutional right of the House to pursue.

If they had passed an original bill with no funding for those other programs too and then changed the bill on round #2 to include them would you agree that's compromise?

Fern

 

[yllus]

I should start thinking about what American stocks to buy in a couple of weeks; something that will be hit disproportionately hard by a government in cold freeze, but will ultimately bounce back better than ever. Supposedly the military will continue to get funding so their contractors are out. Maybe heavy industry of some type?

 

[Paul98]

Besides the debt ceiling being raised, what are the democrats asking for?

 

[Fern]

The Republicans inserted a contraceptive "conscience clause" into the Continuing resolution. They are going to try force things that was rejected before since they cannot pass through normal channels. It's a tactic for sure but let's see who the American people will blame for this.

Pardon me, but what they're doing IS "normal channels".

A President has always had to deal with the House who've always had the option, or even power, to not fund a President's programs. Prior to Obama, most haven't felt they were omnipotent enough to simply ignore the House.

Fern

 

[chowderhead]

House Democrats agreed to Republicans demands to vote for short-term spending bill at Republicans’ number of $986 billion in a “clean” continuing resolution. Republicans are moving the goal post so Obama and the Democrats should not give on Obaamacare.

 

[Texashiker]

If you do not see a problem with the exact scenario we are going through right now repeating itself every 12 months for the rest of our lives you have a very poor understanding of how to run a government.

The only one that seems to have a poor understanding of how the government was designed to be run is you.

This congestion we have in the government is the price we pay for a republic.

The public debt is so detrimental to the security of the republic it must be approved by both houses.

It's a tactic for sure but let's see who the American people will blame for this.

The people know who to blame, and that is both parties in congress.

 

[Jhhnn]

What?

You're confused. This is a SPENDING BILL they're arguing over.

You're claiming it's a debt ceiling bill and it's not.

Fern

Doublespeak. The ACA has been passed & funded previously.

If it's not about the debt ceiling, how then can the govt be shut down?

 

[fskimospy]

You're being silly.

There's a pile of things the Repubs want to cut, and they want the pipeline to go go forward. Those were on their initial list of demands. They've agreed to fund to fund them and dropped the pipeline request.

Bringing "ponys' and such into this makes you look silly. Those others are serious issues and well within the constitutional right of the House to pursue.

If they had passed an original bill with no funding for those other programs too and then changed the bill on round #2 to include them would you agree that's compromise?

Fern

Of course not, how is it that you swallow this crap so easily? The fact that you couldn't understand my obvious example is worrisome. If the democrats had initially demanded a trillion dollar tax increase, would you view their position now as a compromise?

Compromise involves both sides getting something they want. The democrats don't want sequester level spending, they want much more. If you want to delay the ACA so much the republicans could totally choose to compromise. Add in a public option in exchange for a delay. Restore funding to lots of programs. Pass climate change legislation. I can give you tons of additional examples. That would be a compromise. Demanding a lot in exchange for nothing and then demanding less in exchange for nothing is not a compromise.

I know you aren't dumb, but these arguments are so bad it is embarrassing.

 

[nextJin]

Way to many posts since my last visit to this thread but I am still baffeled by all of this.

There is a principle of constitutional law holding that one legislature may not bind the legislative authority of its successors. The ACA is so vast that much like Social Security and other entitlements once it goes into affect it will be impossible for any future Congress (even a supermajority of Republicans and a Republican President) to repeal. Republicans feel they have no other options, they were elected just like the President and Congressional Democrats on the very basis they would do everything in their power to fight the ACA.

Republicans in the 111'th were extremely weak, Democrats had the advantage of riding the coat tails of a historic Presidential election. They later took a fairly good size hit in the 2010 elections when the ACA was front and center of everyones minds. On the ACA Democrats are on record saying it's literally all or nothing forcing Republicans into a corner like a rabid animal.

I said it previously in this thread and I will say it again on the eve of the shutdown (my wife has already been told to stay home). The ACA was a once in a generation chance for 51% of the country to tell the other 49% of the country to fuck off knowing that once passed and implemented there would be no way any future Congress, SCOTUS ruling or President could repeal it. It's the reason they are not budging at all on any part of it.

If the ACA was so incredibly good for the country then no one should have any question if it could pass in the 1'st Congress or the 250'th Congress. It couldn't, and any Congress in the future would also likely not pass such legislation. What does that say about this new law that it would never have a chance at passing any future Congress yet they also can't repeal it?

 

[CrackRabbit]

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.

Dave, is that you?

 

[Fern]

Doublespeak. The ACA has been passed & funded previously.

If it's not about the debt ceiling, how then can the govt be shut down?

We don't pass a budget anymore. But of course is only a blueprint and doesn't authorize spending.

We used to pass appropriation bills to fund the govt. We don't do that anymore.

Now we pass Continuing Resolution (CR) - short term spending appropriation bills.

The last one is expiring and therefore even though the Treas can get by for a few more weeks (i.e., sufficient cash reserves) there is no authority for spending.

Fern

 

[ussfletcher]

Shut down the government. Yahoo! This is much to do about nothing. So we have 400,000 non-essential govt employees. Who cares?

Non-essential does not mean unnecessary. Non-essential means that during a temporary funding lapse, those positions will not critically endanger or impair vital functions. Who are these people? Programmers, IT, business, HR, scientists, and researchers to name a few. While the immediate effects of losing basically all of the white-collar government employees wont be obvious, over the course of several weeks it will.

 

[Fern]

Of course not, how is it that you swallow this crap so easily? The fact that you couldn't understand my obvious example is worrisome. If the democrats had initially demanded a trillion dollar tax increase, would you view their position now as a compromise?

Compromise involves both sides getting something they want. The democrats don't want sequester level spending, they want much more. If you want to delay the ACA so much the republicans could totally choose to compromise. Add in a public option in exchange for a delay. Restore funding to lots of programs. Pass climate change legislation. I can give you tons of additional examples. That would be a compromise. Demanding a lot in exchange for nothing and then demanding less in exchange for nothing is not a compromise.

I know you aren't dumb, but these arguments are so bad it is embarrassing.

Your example(s) are tortured.

But, perhaps more interestingly, yield an insight into your thinking. The thinking of a big government proponent. The only compromise seems to be when both sides get 'more', not just keeping some of what they already have (which is many compromises take place). I.e., both sides getting more is when govt really grows - we get new Dems programs and new Repub programs!

It's also a rather facile and disingenuous argument when one side wants to, e.g., cut spending and the other wants to increase it (even if it's baseline spending increases). By torturing the definition as you do there can never be any compromises because the Dems will always be claiming they must get more spending or there is no compromise, only extortion. (Even when that means the Repubs get no cutting, i.e., nothing of what they want.)

Fern

 

[IGBT]

the sun will still rise and set. the Y2K kooks are the only ones blowHarding about this. Liberals are in a cold sweat tax payers will realize we can do without nearly all of em across the board / all Big Gov.Dept's.

 

[Jhhnn]

Way to many posts since my last visit to this thread but I am still baffeled by all of this.

There is a principle of constitutional law holding that one legislature may not bind the legislative authority of its successors. The ACA is so vast that much like Social Security and other entitlements once it goes into affect it will be impossible for any future Congress (even a supermajority of Republicans and a Republican President) to repeal. Republicans feel they have no other options, they were elected just like the President and Congressional Democrats on the very basis they would do everything in their power to fight the ACA.

Republicans in the 111'th were extremely weak, Democrats had the advantage of riding the coat tails of a historic Presidential election. They later took a fairly good size hit in the 2010 elections when the ACA was front and center of everyones minds. On the ACA Democrats are on record saying it's literally all or nothing forcing Republicans into a corner like a rabid animal.

I said it previously in this thread and I will say it again on the eve of the shutdown (my wife has already been told to stay home). The ACA was a once in a generation chance for 51% of the country to tell the other 49% of the country to fuck off knowing that once passed and implemented there would be no way any future Congress, SCOTUS ruling or President could repeal it. It's the reason they are not budging at all on any part of it.

That's because it will likely be extremely popular.

If the ACA was so incredibly good for the country then no one should have any question if it could pass in the 1'st Congress or the 250'th Congress. It couldn't, and any Congress in the future would also likely not pass such legislation. What does that say about this new law that it would never have a chance at passing any future Congress yet they also can't repeal it?

Pure speculation represented as fact. I'm sure that much the same was said about the New Deal at its inception.

 

[fskimospy]

Your example(s) are tortured.

But, perhaps more interestingly, yield an insight into your thinking. The thinking of a big government proponent. The only compromise seems to be when both sides get 'more', not just keeping some of what they already have (which is many compromises take place). I.e., both sides getting more is when govt really grows - we get new Dems programs and new Repub programs!

No, we would be getting less ACA and getting more of something else. ie: both sides getting something they want.

It's also a rather facile and disingenuous argument when one side wants to, e.g., cut spending and the other wants to increase it (even if it's baseline spending increases). By torturing the definition as you do there can never be any compromises because the Dems will always be claiming they must get more spending or there is no compromise, only extortion. (Even when that means the Repubs get no cutting, i.e., nothing of what they want.)

Fern

Exactly, your argument for the Republican position being a compromise is facile and dishonest. There's no way you don't see it at this point, it can only be pride that's keeping you from admitting it.

There doesn't always need to be more spending, there just has to be something in it the Democrats want. I gave numerous examples, only one of which necessarily added to spending. The Republican position so far has been a continuing level of spending that they declared was a 'victory', along with new demands. That's your idea of a concession.

How stupid do you think we are?

Again though, I admire your ballsiness to contort yourself into such knots and then try and claim other people are twisting the meaning of words. Then again, I guess someone who thinks that threatening global financial stability in order to get rid of a piece of legislation they don't like is a good way to run a government is already starting from a pretty irrational place.

 

[Lithium381]

Hah republicans are likely going to lose this one. Dont' get me wrong, i think the ACA is a train wreck in practice but GOP played the hand wrong. I for one would LOVE to see a week long government shutdown. . it would open a lot of eyes one way or another.

the ACA has a good idea and a good premise, i dont like the delivery of it and the aggresiveness in passing it and implementing it.

 

[ivwshane]

Way to many posts since my last visit to this thread but I am still baffeled by all of this.

There is a principle of constitutional law holding that one legislature may not bind the legislative authority of its successors. The ACA is so vast that much like Social Security and other entitlements once it goes into affect it will be impossible for any future Congress (even a supermajority of Republicans and a Republican President) to repeal. Republicans feel they have no other options, they were elected just like the President and Congressional Democrats on the very basis they would do everything in their power to fight the ACA.

Republicans in the 111'th were extremely weak, Democrats had the advantage of riding the coat tails of a historic Presidential election. They later took a fairly good size hit in the 2010 elections when the ACA was front and center of everyones minds. On the ACA Democrats are on record saying it's literally all or nothing forcing Republicans into a corner like a rabid animal.

I said it previously in this thread and I will say it again on the eve of the shutdown (my wife has already been told to stay home). The ACA was a once in a generation chance for 51% of the country to tell the other 49% of the country to fuck off knowing that once passed and implemented there would be no way any future Congress, SCOTUS ruling or President could repeal it. It's the reason they are not budging at all on any part of it.

If the ACA was so incredibly good for the country then no one should have any question if it could pass in the 1'st Congress or the 250'th Congress. It couldn't, and any Congress in the future would also likely not pass such legislation. What does that say about this new law that it would never have a chance at passing any future Congress yet they also can't repeal it?

Wow what a load of crap! Do you think the civil rights act could have been passed again? What about legislation related to the new deal? Could the patriot act be passed again and again? What about the repeal of the glass steagal act? Could that happen with every congress?

As with every law, ever, if a law doesn't work, isn't popular, or any number of issues, the historical response was to bring forward new legislation or amendments via the normal legislative process. Never has a law been changed or repealed by holding hostage the government funding or the full faith a credit of the US.

Anyone that supports this type of behavior is basically advocating for the breakage of government. I don't know if we have some of those people here on this board but if we did I'd say that as a group they are a bigger threat than any terrorist.

And for people who claimed to say that if the senate went with the nuclear option that it would be used by the republicans if the standings were reversed, how do you not see the same thing with this scenario (I know the answer but I'll let them respond).

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Then again, I guess someone who thinks that threatening global financial stability in order to get rid of a piece of legislation they don't like is a good way to run a government is already starting from a pretty irrational place.

"threatening global financial stability"?



Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Hah republicans are likely going to lose this one. Dont' get me wrong, i think the ACA is a train wreck in practice but GOP played the hand wrong. I for one would LOVE to see a week long government shutdown. . it would open a lot of eyes one way or another.

the ACA has a good idea and a good premise, i dont like the delivery of it and the aggresiveness in passing it and implementing it.

The only way they lose is if they quit the fight and aren't vocal about the real reason for the shutdown - Harry Reid and Obama. The House has passed budget after budget but the Senate won't vote. Now we have a CR that the house has passed and the Senate will vote it down along party lines each time. Yet somehow it's the R's fault for not funding the worst thing since Social Security. Reid and Obama keep saying it's a principle thing and the leftists(and media) are eating it up yet somehow it's terroristic and hostage taking for the Republicans to take a principled stand and not fund obamacare.

Pat Buchannon had a piece that summed it up nicely(not posting the link because the leftists wont read it due to where it's hosted)