Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   While defunding Obamacare is getting all the press, the House GOP bill to raise the debt ceiling is chock full o' crazy: means testing medicare, gutting EPA rules, repealing Dodd-Frank, building Keystone XL, and of course, Tax cuts   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, House GOP, GOP, obamacare, Medicare, EPA, tax cuts, EPA rules, tax reform  
•       •       •

1482 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2013 at 1:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-24 12:51:31 PM  
Summary: The GOP will continue waste taxpayer money as they negotiate in bad faith on legislation that will never become law.
 
2013-09-24 12:52:22 PM  
There's less than a zero chance Obama will negotiate on the debt ceiling. He'd rather default, and defaulting would actually be better for the US than keeping up this charade.
 
2013-09-24 12:57:37 PM  
*sigh*
 
2013-09-24 01:11:03 PM  
"Job rich Keystone XL pipeline"  Are they high?
 
2013-09-24 01:13:14 PM  

James!: "Job rich Keystone XL pipeline"  Are they high?


The temporarily embarrassed millionaires that support these policies have to believe. You don't understand, they already have concluded the GOP is god's team, so therefor: yes. Yes they are.
 
2013-09-24 01:16:38 PM  
I hope they remembered to defund ACORN and Planned Parenthood.
 
2013-09-24 01:27:57 PM  
The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.
 
2013-09-24 01:32:18 PM  
I think the Republicans are in some serious trouble now. I was reading news comments from NBC 12 News in Phoenix and the comments are usually pretty derpy when it comes to immigration, Obama, and a list of other things. But yesterday they asked who was at fault for the economy and the responses overwhelmingly came in against the GOP. I've never seen such a consensus against the Republicans before on that website.
 
2013-09-24 01:32:27 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Summary: The GOP will continue waste taxpayer money as they negotiate in bad faith on legislation that will never become law.


Yup.
 
2013-09-24 01:32:48 PM  
How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.
 
2013-09-24 01:32:51 PM  
WYY WONT OBAMAA JUST LEADFWQ'4TLQH4T
 
2013-09-24 01:35:15 PM  
Keystone XL is a really good way to reduce our domestic oil supplies and lose out on energy tax revenue.
 
2013-09-24 01:36:05 PM  

dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.


Came here to say this.
 
2013-09-24 01:36:49 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Keystone XL is a really good way to reduce our domestic oil supplies and lose out on energy tax revenue.


Plus potentially fark over our aquifers. Of course, I'm *SURE* a foreign company would try to make good any actual damage they caused, and not tell people to pound sand!
 
2013-09-24 01:37:14 PM  

DamnYankees: There's less than a zero chance Obama will negotiate on the debt ceiling. He'd rather default, and defaulting would actually be better for the US than keeping up this charade.


Yup, even just the stuff in the headline is a whole lotta "nope".
 
2013-09-24 01:37:29 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: I think the Republicans are in some serious trouble now. I was reading news comments from NBC 12 News in Phoenix and the comments are usually pretty derpy when it comes to immigration, Obama, and a list of other things. But yesterday they asked who was at fault for the economy and the responses overwhelmingly came in against the GOP. I've never seen such a consensus against the Republicans before on that website.


I keep hearing how the GOP will blame Obama and democrats on whatever backlash comes out of a shutdown/default scenario, and it's true. But I think those same people fail to realize that the public isn't as willing to buy it as they have in the past. The GOP have used that tactic way too many times in the last decade and people, even loyal republicans, are catching on that the GOP is full of shiat.
 
2013-09-24 01:38:33 PM  

James!: "Job rich Keystone XL pipeline"  Are they high?


Not US jobs.
 
2013-09-24 01:40:01 PM  

dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.


One dirty socialist's opinion.
 
2013-09-24 01:40:15 PM  
Weaver95:  I...don't know what to say about that.

Fu*k 'em?
 
2013-09-24 01:40:49 PM  

Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.



4.bp.blogspot.com

/sooner the looneys are out on the street, the sooner the saner minority in the Republican Party can start being heard again (assuming any are left after Dole and the others got shuffled off to the nursing homes).
 
2013-09-24 01:41:02 PM  

dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.


Because anybody who can afford it does not waste time with medicare?  I mean, seriously, why would you if you didn't have to?
 
2013-09-24 01:42:26 PM  

dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.


Medicare is not a form of welfare, it is a social insurance program.  Making it only available for a qualified subgroup means it gets turned into a type of welfare, ultimately undermining the program.

Now, this being said, I think there are opportunities to introduce certain cost controls including something along the lines of means-tested copays or higher premium payments.
 
2013-09-24 01:42:31 PM  
Gee, it's almost as though they know this shiat has absolutely no chance of ever getting enacted, so they just threw it all in just so they could see it in print.
 
2013-09-24 01:42:34 PM  
Keystone's already dead. It's stupid to keep it up in the House. The companies have already decided to just find an alternative.

The rest of it is equally wasteful.

I thought these turds were elected based on "Taxes Enough Already?". Instead they choose to waste my tax monies with stupid shiat like this.

Christ, what a bunch of assholes.
 
2013-09-24 01:43:24 PM  

dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.


Once you means-test it, it becomes welfare and subject to rapacious defunding efforts by Republicans and Blue Dogs. It is essential that neither Medicare nor Social Security be means-tested, or they will be gutted and we will return to the Gilded Age of elderly Americans suffering disproportionate levels of poverty.
 
2013-09-24 01:43:31 PM  

Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.


Conservikazi. Better to destroy yourself than admit defeat.
 
2013-09-24 01:44:48 PM  

urbangirl: dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.

Came here to say this.


I can predict, given the current pattern of conduct what will happen, right down to the sequence of events with means-testing.

Democrats will crunch some numbers, figure out it's a good GOP idea and put a bill together proposing it.
The GOP will oppose the bill, and threaten to filibuster it, because it was a Democrat who proposed it.
The Democrats will launch an ad campaign targeted at conservatives, and will get 'just' enough support to get it passed.
Obama will sign it.
The GOP will go bat-shiat crazy trying to repeal it.
The GOP will threaten government Shutdowns, filibusters, and call anyone who wants to 'kill granny' a communist.
The GOP will make a huge issue out of it, Sarah Palin will start her 'death panels' thing again.
The law will be challenged in court, it will stand.  Conservatives will have a complete mental implosion, and threaten secession, turn to finding blame amongst their own, and wail endlessly about the 'end of freedom in the country'.


And not one single person in the GOP will ever remember it was their idea in the first place....and Obama will have won again, using the exact same tactic...
 
2013-09-24 01:44:50 PM  
Guys, you forgot the trolls talking points.

The House plan to fund the government was exactly what Obama wanted, EXCEPT the one TEENY concession of defunding Obamacare.
 
2013-09-24 01:44:53 PM  
They really want to fark over everyone and everything, don't they?  It's like a death cult.. willing to end the world, on the chance they can personally become immortal.
 
2013-09-24 01:45:32 PM  

urbangirl: dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.

Came here to say this.


It is a social insurance program, not a welfare program.  Higher income earners have already paid more into the program through payroll taxes. Also- what you draw out of it depends on your health, not your income.  You ain't buying lobster.

In short- means testing is an attempt to cheat people from getting what they rightfully paid for while working.
 
2013-09-24 01:45:49 PM  

Felgraf: Marcus Aurelius: Keystone XL is a really good way to reduce our domestic oil supplies and lose out on energy tax revenue.

Plus potentially fark over our aquifers. Of course, I'm *SURE* a foreign company would try to make good any actual damage they caused, and not tell people to pound sand!


that probably coincides with the call for lax EPA regs.
 
2013-09-24 01:46:16 PM  
Obvious tag disenfranchised?
 
2013-09-24 01:46:36 PM  

Rootus: why would you if you didn't have to?


My ex does...(not medicare, but our state's equivalent) because the benefits are better than what she can get in the private sector at her pay level.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-24 01:48:30 PM  
THANKS OBAMA
 
2013-09-24 01:49:10 PM  

Blathering Idjut: It is a social insurance program, not a welfare program. Higher income earners have already paid more into the program through payroll taxes. Also- what you draw out of it depends on your health, not your income. You ain't buying lobster.


Thank you for the clarification.  Wasn't aware of the difference.
 
2013-09-24 01:49:54 PM  

dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.


Because it doesn't save any money and will account for only a small number of people not getting medicare. Any reasonable test costs more to implement then it will save.
 
2013-09-24 01:50:11 PM  

Jim_Callahan: DamnYankees: There's less than a zero chance Obama will negotiate on the debt ceiling. He'd rather default, and defaulting would actually be better for the US than keeping up this charade.

Yup, even just the stuff in the headline is a whole lotta "nope".


Literally anything is a nope. He knows that negotiating over the debt ceiling is the biggest mistake of his presidency, and that doing it again would be horrific for the future of the US government.
 
2013-09-24 01:50:12 PM  
You want to talk people who feel entitled? How entitled do you have to be to lose the presidency AND seats in both chambers of Congress and still feel like the people want a version of your economic agenda that is further into "Thar Be Dragons" territory than you ran on?
 
2013-09-24 01:50:15 PM  

jgbrowning: Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.

Conservikazi. Better to destroy yourself than admit defeat.


Well, you were told the tipping point had been reached.  From here on in, this is what you can expect.

lolsnaps.com
 
2013-09-24 01:50:17 PM  

Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.


How will they destroy themselves. I work with really really intelligent guys who think medicare is going broke, social security won't be there in 15 years and the country is broke. I'd say the GOP won the messaging war.
 
2013-09-24 01:51:54 PM  

dragonfire77: urbangirl: dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.

Came here to say this.

I can predict, given the current pattern of conduct what will happen, right down to the sequence of events with means-testing.

Democrats will crunch some numbers, figure out it's a good GOP idea and put a bill together proposing it.
The GOP will oppose the bill, and threaten to filibuster it, because it was a Democrat who proposed it.
The Democrats will launch an ad campaign targeted at conservatives, and will get 'just' enough support to get it passed.
Obama will sign it.
The GOP will go bat-shiat crazy trying to repeal it.
The GOP will threaten government Shutdowns, filibusters, and call anyone who wants to 'kill granny' a communist.
The GOP will make a huge issue out of it, Sarah Palin will start her 'death panels' thing again.
The law will be challenged in court, it will stand.  Conservatives will have a complete mental implosion, and threaten secession, turn to finding blame amongst their own, and wail endlessly about the 'end of freedom in the country'.


And not one single person in the GOP will ever remember it was their idea in the first place....and Obama will have won again, using the exact same tactic...


Winning needs to stop meaning passing retarded GOP bullshiat and taking credit.
 
2013-09-24 01:54:02 PM  

Ambitwistor: dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.

One dirty socialist's opinion.


Very well-put.

Stile4aly: Medicare is not a form of welfare, it is a social insurance program. Making it only available for a qualified subgroup means it gets turned into a type of welfare, ultimately undermining the program.


Which has been their goal since the beginning.
 
2013-09-24 01:54:04 PM  
Do it.

DO IT!

deanhunt.com
 
2013-09-24 01:54:42 PM  

Isitoveryet: Felgraf: Marcus Aurelius: Keystone XL is a really good way to reduce our domestic oil supplies and lose out on energy tax revenue.

Plus potentially fark over our aquifers. Of course, I'm *SURE* a foreign company would try to make good any actual damage they caused, and not tell people to pound sand!

that probably coincides with the call for lax EPA regs.


So... you two do realize that Keystone's not dead and the current recommendation for the XL expansion is for approval with minor non-binding requests for delay from the EPA with acknowledgement that their filed concerns have been addressed, right?  And that the core of the pipeline's more or less in place, we're just discussing the timing of the "XL" expansion?

The GOP's entire shiat-fit over the matter has been over the project being  slightly behind schedule, and the main reason it's behind schedule is primarily... the GOP's shiat-fit, which they started because Obama's executive was  sticking to the schedule instead of approving it early.

Possibly the stupidest "issue" in politics today.
 
2013-09-24 01:55:12 PM  

Nadie_AZ: I work with really really intelligent guys who think


No, you really don't.
 
2013-09-24 01:55:46 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.

How will they destroy themselves. I work with really really intelligent guys who think medicare is going broke, social security won't be there in 15 years and the country is broke. I'd say the GOP won the messaging war.


And yet the GOP is losing, they lost two presidential elections, lost the Senate, and only hold onto the House through gerrymandering.

You say they won the messaging war, but the results say you're fulla shiat.
 
2013-09-24 01:55:46 PM  
"House GOP bill to raise the debt ceiling is chock full o' crazy: means testing Medicare, gutting EPA rules, repealing Dodd-Frank, building Keystone XL, and of course, Tax cuts"

Aside from repealing Dodd-Frank, I'm...OK with this.
 
2013-09-24 01:55:57 PM  

Rootus: dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.

Because anybody who can afford it does not waste time with medicare?  I mean, seriously, why would you if you didn't have to?


Exactly.  Means-testing medicare is a freaking waste of time.  Means-testing social security, on the other hand, actually has some merit---even the rich old coots are happy to collect more free money they don't need.
 
2013-09-24 01:56:07 PM  

Ned Stark: dragonfire77: urbangirl: dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.

Came here to say this.

I can predict, given the current pattern of conduct what will happen, right down to the sequence of events with means-testing.

Democrats will crunch some numbers, figure out it's a good GOP idea and put a bill together proposing it.
The GOP will oppose the bill, and threaten to filibuster it, because it was a Democrat who proposed it.
The Democrats will launch an ad campaign targeted at conservatives, and will get 'just' enough support to get it passed.
Obama will sign it.
The GOP will go bat-shiat crazy trying to repeal it.
The GOP will threaten government Shutdowns, filibusters, and call anyone who wants to 'kill granny' a communist.
The GOP will make a huge issue out of it, Sarah Palin will start her 'death panels' thing again.
The law will be challenged in court, it will stand.  Conservatives will have a complete mental implosion, and threaten secession, turn to finding blame amongst their own, and wail endlessly about the 'end of freedom in the country'.


And not one single person in the GOP will ever remember it was their idea in the first place....and Obama will have won again, using the exact same tactic...

Winning needs to stop meaning passing retarded GOP bullshiat and taking credit.


The GOP thought they had a permanent majority. The takeover of the White House in '08 and the House in '06 really really really pissed them off. '10 was about grabbing that permanent majority again by way of the House. They really believed they had it again in '12. Why, I don't know. Romney was a really weak candidate and they had a really weak platform.

So winning to them is about reclaiming what they truly believed should be theirs: a permanent majority.
 
2013-09-24 01:57:49 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Possibly the stupidest "issue" in politics today.


That's a bold statement.  Threatening a national default in return for tax cuts is about as idiotic as it gets.
 
2013-09-24 01:57:51 PM  

quiotu: Nadie_AZ: Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.

How will they destroy themselves. I work with really really intelligent guys who think medicare is going broke, social security won't be there in 15 years and the country is broke. I'd say the GOP won the messaging war.

And yet the GOP is losing, they lost two presidential elections, lost the Senate, and only hold onto the House through gerrymandering.

You say they won the messaging war, but the results say you're fulla shiat.


Fair enough. It probably doesn't help that I live in a more moderate to conservative state.
 
2013-09-24 01:58:11 PM  

Nadie_AZ: So winning to them is about reclaiming what they truly believed should be theirs: a permanent majority.


And the Dems are different.. how?
 
2013-09-24 01:59:42 PM  

James!: "Job rich Keystone XL pipeline"  Are they high?


so, they have been working on a "jobs" bill!
 
2013-09-24 02:00:12 PM  
Means testing medicare is crazy? Why do you want to give subsidies to millionaires subby?
 
2013-09-24 02:02:16 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Means-testing social security, on the other hand, actually has some merit---even the rich old coots are happy to collect more free money they don't need


Hey now, that's crazy talk.  I'm planning on the SS income for my beer fund.
 
2013-09-24 02:03:23 PM  

trotsky: Keystone's already dead. It's stupid to keep it up in the House. The companies have already decided to just find an alternative.


something no existing never stopped them before.  see: defunding ACORN after it disbanded.
 
2013-09-24 02:03:32 PM  

MyRandomName: Means testing medicare is crazy? Why do you want to give subsidies to millionaires subby?


Because medicare is a social insurance program, not a welfare program, and everyone pays in and it should be available to everyone? Means testing would make the process of getting medicare a lot more invasive for EVERYONE.

Also, in case it gets lost, this link is spot on:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/means-testing-medicare/?_ r =0">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/means-testing-medicar e/?_r =0
 
2013-09-24 02:03:56 PM  

doyner: Stile4aly: Medicare is not a form of welfare, it is a social insurance program. Making it only available for a qualified subgroup means it gets turned into a type of welfare, ultimately undermining the program.

Which has been their goal since the beginning.


Exactly. Social Security and Medicare are so successful and resistant to disruption because everyone is in the risk pool. I'd ideally prefer a more means-tested scheme in both cases, but the politics of doing that would almost certainly lead to their complete eradication, and that's not something I support.
 
2013-09-24 02:05:55 PM  

dragonfire77: How exactly is means-testing medicare 'crazy'?  I loathe the current iteration of the GOP...but this is an idea I could be on board with.


Essentially it does the exact same thing as raising taxes on the wealthy you are targeting to remove from the system, incentive wise, with far less revenues. You can accomplish the same thing by just adding a tax on that population to subsidize the program.
 
2013-09-24 02:07:04 PM  

Calmamity: Weaver95:  I...don't know what to say about that.

Fu*k 'em?


Exactly; it's like they don't think Obama's going to get the same bounce as Clinton got when he played this game in 1995.

Then again, we're talking about the same group of nimrods that were convinced Romney was going to win last year.
 
2013-09-24 02:07:15 PM  

MyRandomName: Means testing medicare is crazy? Why do you want to give subsidies to millionaires subby?


This is Republicans we're talking about.  It's most likely something like, "Oh, you didn't make a million dollars in your lifetime?  Sorry, no Medicare for you."
 
2013-09-24 02:07:42 PM  
These people are insane.
 
2013-09-24 02:08:58 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Isitoveryet: Felgraf: Marcus Aurelius: Keystone XL is a really good way to reduce our domestic oil supplies and lose out on energy tax revenue.

Plus potentially fark over our aquifers. Of course, I'm *SURE* a foreign company would try to make good any actual damage they caused, and not tell people to pound sand!

that probably coincides with the call for lax EPA regs.

So... you two do realize that Keystone's not dead and the current recommendation for the XL expansion is for approval with minor non-binding requests for delay from the EPA with acknowledgement that their filed concerns have been addressed, right?  And that the core of the pipeline's more or less in place, we're just discussing the timing of the "XL" expansion?

The GOP's entire shiat-fit over the matter has been over the project being  slightly behind schedule, and the main reason it's behind schedule is primarily... the GOP's shiat-fit, which they started because Obama's executive was  sticking to the schedule instead of approving it early.

Possibly the stupidest "issue" in politics today.


I am aware that it is not dead although i don't know what the current status of its development is.
 
2013-09-24 02:09:23 PM  

Doc Lee: MyRandomName: Means testing medicare is crazy? Why do you want to give subsidies to millionaires subby?

This is Republicans we're talking about.  It's most likely something like, "Oh, you didn't make a million dollars in your lifetime?  Sorry, no Medicare for you."


Don't kid yourself.  Republican means testing will find someway to favor the wealthy and screw the working class.
 
2013-09-24 02:09:36 PM  
My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!
 
2013-09-24 02:09:44 PM  
I realize we're about to go off this cliff, and I should probably hit the brakes, but before I do that, let's discuss English as the official language and a flag burning amendment.
 
2013-09-24 02:10:04 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Possibly the stupidest "issue" in politics today.


why so? i personally don't think we need to support the extension.
 
2013-09-24 02:10:39 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: So winning to them is about reclaiming what they truly believed should be theirs: a permanent majority.

And the Dems are different.. how?


I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

But yes, both sides want to win. No, both sides won't employ the same tactics.
 
2013-09-24 02:11:36 PM  

physt: Doc Lee: MyRandomName: Means testing medicare is crazy? Why do you want to give subsidies to millionaires subby?

This is Republicans we're talking about.  It's most likely something like, "Oh, you didn't make a million dollars in your lifetime?  Sorry, no Medicare for you."

Don't kid yourself.  Republican means testing will find someway to favor the wealthy and screw the working class.


That's exactly what I said...  Reading...it's fundamental.  Or so I've been told.
 
2013-09-24 02:13:53 PM  

The GOP wants to initiate means-testing of Medicare?

1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2013-09-24 02:14:10 PM  

error 303: My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!


Shutting down the government and ending the government's ability to borrow money would have very different effects. A government shutdown we can weather relatively easily. I'll let Adam Davidson summarize the debt ceiling issue:

1. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily defaulted on its debt.
2. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fallout won't be apocalyptic.
3. It'll be much worse.
 
2013-09-24 02:14:19 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Keystone XL is a really good way to reduce our domestic oil supplies and lose out on energy tax revenue.


How exactly is this going to decrease our domestic supplies when it is coming from Canada?
 
2013-09-24 02:17:11 PM  

Serious Black: error 303: My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!

Shutting down the government and ending the government's ability to borrow money would have very different effects. A government shutdown we can weather relatively easily. I'll let Adam Davidson summarize the debt ceiling issue:

1. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily defaulted on its debt.
2. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fallout won't be apocalyptic.
3. It'll be much worse.


Right, I don't disagree, just noting that defunding the ACA is part of the end of the FY budget battle, while the debt ceiling battle comes a few weeks after. Fun stuff, for sure.
 
2013-09-24 02:17:48 PM  

imontheinternet: I realize we're about to go off this cliff, and I should probably hit the brakes, but before I do that, let's discuss English as the official language and a flag burning amendment.


I concur, flag burnings should only be conducted in English.
 
2013-09-24 02:20:04 PM  

Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.


Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.
 
2013-09-24 02:22:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


Not really, but keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-09-24 02:22:45 PM  
Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?
 
2013-09-24 02:23:08 PM  

error 303: Serious Black: error 303: My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!

Shutting down the government and ending the government's ability to borrow money would have very different effects. A government shutdown we can weather relatively easily. I'll let Adam Davidson summarize the debt ceiling issue:

1. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily defaulted on its debt.
2. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fallout won't be apocalyptic.
3. It'll be much worse.

Right, I don't disagree, just noting that defunding the ACA is part of the end of the FY budget battle, while the debt ceiling battle comes a few weeks after. Fun stuff, for sure.


If the debt ceiling isn't raised we will just print/credit money to erase all or part of the debt so we can keep spending. It would have bad repercussions on the economy, particularly with potential inflation, but it wouldn't destroy everything everywhere.

A government cannot default on it's own currency if that currency is what is used to establish its economic value.
 
2013-09-24 02:24:50 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?


1man1jar?
 
2013-09-24 02:28:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


I don't recall them shutting down, or threatening to shut down the Government simply because they didn't like any law that was passed.

I do have a question though: Would you have supported impeachment of Bush Jr if he'd lied to Congress and the American public about an affair with an intern?
 
2013-09-24 02:31:21 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?


BME Pain Olympics.
 
2013-09-24 02:33:17 PM  

error 303: Serious Black: error 303: My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!

Shutting down the government and ending the government's ability to borrow money would have very different effects. A government shutdown we can weather relatively easily. I'll let Adam Davidson summarize the debt ceiling issue:

1. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily defaulted on its debt.
2. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fallout won't be apocalyptic.
3. It'll be much worse.

Right, I don't disagree, just noting that defunding the ACA is part of the end of the FY budget battle, while the debt ceiling battle comes a few weeks after. Fun stuff, for sure.


<sarcasm> Oh, absolutely! </sarcasm> I'm not looking forward to it at all. I honestly hope the government DOES shut down and that it feeds the Tea Party's hysteria enough to let Congress lift the debt ceiling without risking the complete destruction of the global economy.
 
2013-09-24 02:34:08 PM  

Nadie_AZ: I do have a question though: Would you have supported impeachment of Bush Jr if he'd lied to Congress and the American public about an affair with an intern?


Can tell me why you ask and what you think this has to do with that? I'm curious what assumptions you have made and which conclusions you have jumped to.
 
2013-09-24 02:34:44 PM  

JollyMagistrate: error 303: Serious Black: error 303: My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!

Shutting down the government and ending the government's ability to borrow money would have very different effects. A government shutdown we can weather relatively easily. I'll let Adam Davidson summarize the debt ceiling issue:

1. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily defaulted on its debt.
2. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fallout won't be apocalyptic.
3. It'll be much worse.

Right, I don't disagree, just noting that defunding the ACA is part of the end of the FY budget battle, while the debt ceiling battle comes a few weeks after. Fun stuff, for sure.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised we will just print/credit money to erase all or part of the debt so we can keep spending. It would have bad repercussions on the economy, particularly with potential inflation, but it wouldn't destroy everything everywhere.

A government cannot default on it's own currency if that currency is what is used to establish its economic value.


So instead of failing to satisfy financial obligations and destroying our credit rating plus our status as holding the reserve currency, we'll just create hyperinflation and destroy our credit rating plus our status as holding the reserve currency. I think there's a problem with your plan.
 
2013-09-24 02:38:48 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?


BojanglesPaladin ?
 
2013-09-24 02:40:15 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I do have a question though: Would you have supported impeachment of Bush Jr if he'd lied to Congress and the American public about an affair with an intern?

Can tell me why you ask and what you think this has to do with that? I'm curious what assumptions you have made and which conclusions you have jumped to.


I mean, Bush Jr lied to the American people and Congress about going to war in Iraq and nobody in Congress considered impeachment.

Would Obama get that kind of pass?

You want to play 'both sides are bad' game, and I'm asking questions I know the answer to. Sorta fun. Or not. I might be bored as I'm sure I'll be broadsided with some inane detail.
 
2013-09-24 02:40:42 PM  

Ned Stark: that bosnian sniper: Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?

1man1jar?


2juggalos1bedpan
 
2013-09-24 02:41:19 PM  
Serious Black:
<sarcasm> Oh, absolutely! </sarcasm> I'm not looking forward to it at all. I honestly hope the government DOES shut down and that it feeds the Tea Party's hysteria enough to let Congress lift the debt ceiling without risking the complete destruction of the global economy.

Yeah, as an Army employee who has already been subjected to furlough days and pay reduction this year, the prospect of doing it all over again fills me with whatever the opposite of glee is. Lurching along with Continuing Resolutions and brinksmanship these past few yeras has been awful, so I'm also at the point of break it to fix it myself if it means we can get a resonable GOP back. But having that much uncertainty tied up not just in my paycheck but in my ability to actually get work done has been really, frustratingly off-putting.
 
2013-09-24 02:41:42 PM  

Ned Stark: that bosnian sniper: Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?

1man1jar?


Yeah, that'll do 'er.
 
2013-09-24 02:42:00 PM  

I Havent Killed Anybody Since 1984: that bosnian sniper: Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?

BME Pain Olympics.


For people who still haven't developed a calloused optic nerve from excessive internet exposure, tubgirl involves a girl, a tub, and her own explosive diarrhea. The pain olympics involve male genital mutilation.

You should probably just go ahead and not google either of those things, ever.
 
2013-09-24 02:42:45 PM  

dr_blasto: Ned Stark: that bosnian sniper: Remember yesterday when I said tubgirl was an apt metaphor for Republican political strategy?  What's one step past tubgirl?

1man1jar?


2juggalos1bedpan


*faints from revulsion*
 
2013-09-24 02:43:53 PM  

Serious Black: JollyMagistrate: error 303: Serious Black: error 303: My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!

Shutting down the government and ending the government's ability to borrow money would have very different effects. A government shutdown we can weather relatively easily. I'll let Adam Davidson summarize the debt ceiling issue:

1. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily defaulted on its debt.
2. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fallout won't be apocalyptic.
3. It'll be much worse.

Right, I don't disagree, just noting that defunding the ACA is part of the end of the FY budget battle, while the debt ceiling battle comes a few weeks after. Fun stuff, for sure.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised we will just print/credit money to erase all or part of the debt so we can keep spending. It would have bad repercussions on the economy, particularly with potential inflation, but it wouldn't destroy everything everywhere.

A government cannot default on it's own currency if that currency is what is used to establish its economic value.

So instead of failing to satisfy financial obligations and destroying our credit rating plus our status as holding the reserve currency, we'll just create hyperinflation and destroy our credit rating plus our status as holding the reserve currency. I think there's a problem with your plan.


I'm not saying it's a good scenario. It is, however, a better one than defaulting on our credit (which accomplishes the same thing plus massive unemployment and shutdown of credit markets).

Ideally we would do away with a debt ceiling entirely, as it is an economically silly idea.
 
2013-09-24 02:44:30 PM  

error 303: Yeah, as an Army employee who has already been subjected to furlough days and pay reduction this year...


I have a close relative who does TRICARE accounts management -- claims, PCM changes, enrollment and plan changes. Trust me, come October 1st you'll wish for a damned shutdown, you guys are getting  screwed.
 
2013-09-24 02:44:49 PM  

Nadie_AZ: BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I do have a question though: Would you have supported impeachment of Bush Jr if he'd lied to Congress and the American public about an affair with an intern?

Can tell me why you ask and what you think this has to do with that? I'm curious what assumptions you have made and which conclusions you have jumped to.

I mean, Bush Jr lied to the American people and Congress about going to war in Iraq and nobody in Congress considered impeachment.

Would Obama get that kind of pass?

You want to play 'both sides are bad' game, and I'm asking questions I know the answer to. Sorta fun. Or not. I might be bored as I'm sure I'll be broadsided with some inane detail.


I would give Obama substantially better odds of getting a pass for lying America into a war than getting a pass for lying about a blowjob.
 
2013-09-24 02:46:44 PM  

JollyMagistrate: Serious Black: JollyMagistrate: error 303: Serious Black: error 303: My understanding was defunding the ACA was part of the submitted House budget to prevent the government from shutting down due to lack of funding beginning in FY14 (i.e. October 1st), while the debt ceiling debate is a little further down the road. So we've got two chances for a government shutdown before the end of the Calendar year. Which is awesome. Yay obstruction!

Shutting down the government and ending the government's ability to borrow money would have very different effects. A government shutdown we can weather relatively easily. I'll let Adam Davidson summarize the debt ceiling issue:

1. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily defaulted on its debt.
2. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fallout won't be apocalyptic.
3. It'll be much worse.

Right, I don't disagree, just noting that defunding the ACA is part of the end of the FY budget battle, while the debt ceiling battle comes a few weeks after. Fun stuff, for sure.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised we will just print/credit money to erase all or part of the debt so we can keep spending. It would have bad repercussions on the economy, particularly with potential inflation, but it wouldn't destroy everything everywhere.

A government cannot default on it's own currency if that currency is what is used to establish its economic value.

So instead of failing to satisfy financial obligations and destroying our credit rating plus our status as holding the reserve currency, we'll just create hyperinflation and destroy our credit rating plus our status as holding the reserve currency. I think there's a problem with your plan.

I'm not saying it's a good scenario. It is, however, a better one than defaulting on our credit (which accomplishes the same thing plus massive unemployment and shutdown of credit markets).

Ideally we would do away with a debt ceiling entirely, as it is an economically silly idea.


No shiat. If Congress is sick and tired of borrowing money and creating a mountain of debt, they should stop passing bills that create financial obligations we can only satisfy by borrowing money and creating a mountain of debt. Nobody in Congress has done that. Even the wildly delusional RSC budget from the House requires us to borrow a few trillion dollars over the next ten years to satisfy all its obligations!
 
2013-09-24 02:47:48 PM  
Got crushed in an election, only kept the house because of no-lose gerrymandered districts, perceives that as a mandate to run the country and if you don't agree with them they will burn this place to the ground.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the GOP!!!
 
2013-09-24 02:48:32 PM  

Magruda: Marcus Aurelius: Keystone XL is a really good way to reduce our domestic oil supplies and lose out on energy tax revenue.

How exactly is this going to decrease our domestic supplies when it is coming from Canada?


The oil companies currently transfer oil from Canada to Missouri and Illinois for processing, via the Keystone pipeline. Much of that processed oil is sold here in the United States.

The oil companies really would like to transfer oil from Canada to Texas, via the Keystone XL pipeline, where it could be processed and put on boats, so it could be sold to overseas markets.

Less Canadian oil here = more domestic supplies used here.
 
2013-09-24 02:49:16 PM  
Hopefully when this hits the Senate it will be sent back with every single GOP request stripped out.

It's time to teach the GOP that they get nothing.
 
2013-09-24 02:52:06 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Less Canadian oil here = more domestic supplies used here.


Not sure how i feel about that when i don't think anybody should be using that oil. It has the overall worst impact on the environment of any type of crude.
 
2013-09-24 02:53:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: So winning to them is about reclaiming what they truly believed should be theirs: a permanent majority.

And the Dems are different.. how?


Vote Green Party!
 
2013-09-24 02:55:34 PM  
I still don't think Obama will allow a default. Too much damage for no reason.
 
2013-09-24 02:56:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


Reality would beg to differ:
rantpant.com
 
2013-09-24 03:00:02 PM  

Nadie_AZ: You want to play 'both sides are bad' game


No. It's "neither side is good and neither side is evil and neither side is on your side" or else "both sides are the same".  Binary politico teamthink is a sign of a weak intellect. The question is and should always be "Is THIS good policy?", not "Is THIS good for the party?".

Nadie_AZ:  I might be bored as I'm sure I'll be broadsided with some inane detail.

It won't be from me. That whole line of hypothetical "b-b-b-but Bush!" reasoning is dumb and I'm not even getting started in it.

Thank you. Your response answered my question, and I'll let you go on your way. Have a nice afternoon.
 
2013-09-24 03:03:38 PM  

vernonFL: I hope they remembered to defund ACORN and Planned Parenthood.


Don't forget NPR!
 
2013-09-24 03:04:24 PM  

Magorn: Reality would beg to differ:


Interesting, but your chart isn't complete. Show me on the chart how it accounts for the difference between the traditional physical filibuster, and the 'procedural' filibuster. Also, remind me again who changed the rules to allow for a procedural filibuster? Please squint and look at when that spike actually started. And lastly, I notice that there is no accounting for which parties have contributed the most. I think that would be interesting to see, don't you?
 
2013-09-24 03:08:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: Reality would beg to differ:

Interesting, but your chart isn't complete. Show me on the chart how it accounts for the difference between the traditional physical filibuster, and the 'procedural' filibuster. Also, remind me again who changed the rules to allow for a procedural filibuster? Please squint and look at when that spike actually started. And lastly, I notice that there is no accounting for which parties have contributed the most. I think that would be interesting to see, don't you?


There really wasn't a rule change that allowed for a procedural filibuster. There's nothing stopping Harry Reid from forcing people who do not want to vote for cloture from actually talking. It's just that doing so would completely shut down the Senate because a group of 40 people can maintain a talking filibuster on a bill indefinitely while forcing 50 people who do want to invoke cloture to stay in the chamber perpetually.
 
2013-09-24 03:17:10 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: Reality would beg to differ:

Interesting, but your chart isn't complete. Show me on the chart how it accounts for the difference between the traditional physical filibuster, and the 'procedural' filibuster. Also, remind me again who changed the rules to allow for a procedural filibuster? Please squint and look at when that spike actually started. And lastly, I notice that there is no accounting for which parties have contributed the most. I think that would be interesting to see, don't you?


Let me make it more clear for you: In 2007 the Democrats gained control of the senate and the Republicans became the minority party, the one that needs to use the Filibuster, at which point his happened:
i284.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-24 03:24:55 PM  

Magorn: Let me make it more clear for you: In 2007 the Democrats gained control of the senate and the Republicans became the minority party, the one that needs to use the Filibuster, at which point his happened:


(Nice big red projected on the chart.)

I get it. Republicans are asshole poopyheads.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked about.
 
2013-09-24 03:28:12 PM  
 
2013-09-24 03:33:30 PM  
m.static.newsvine.com
 
2013-09-24 03:34:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: Let me make it more clear for you: In 2007 the Democrats gained control of the senate and the Republicans became the minority party, the one that needs to use the Filibuster, at which point his happened:

(Nice big red projected on the chart.)

I get it. Republicans are asshole poopyheads.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked about.


It ended up relatively accurate; the final count was 112 cloture votes, or 184% of the previous record set by the 107th Congress that was an even 50-50 split between the parties.
 
2013-09-24 03:36:37 PM  

Lando Lincoln: The oil companies currently transfer oil from Canada to Missouri and Illinois for processing, via the Keystone pipeline. Much of that processed oil is sold here in the United States.

The oil companies really would like to transfer oil from Canada to Texas, via the Keystone XL pipeline, where it could be processed and put on boats, so it could be sold to overseas markets.

Less Canadian oil here = more domestic supplies used here.


You're missing that piping oil is cheaper than transporting it to the Gulf Coast by rail or truck, and those Gulf Coast refineries that would service KeystoneXL's terminus are situated comfortably in TFZ's meaning tax- and duty-free transportation, refining, and shipping.
 
2013-09-24 03:39:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


Just yesterday I called you a habitual liar.  After this whopper, you've officially been promoted to pathological.

Good grief.
 
2013-09-24 03:41:57 PM  

Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate


Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."
 
2013-09-24 03:42:51 PM  

Tor_Eckman: After this whopper, you've officially been promoted to pathological.


Oh dear. A Fark slapfighter doesn't like me. Whatever shall I do?
 
2013-09-24 03:51:42 PM  
Has Bojangles ever posted in a thread and been relatively accurate about anything?
 
2013-09-24 03:52:15 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Tor_Eckman: After this whopper, you've officially been promoted to pathological.

Oh dear. A Fark slapfighter doesn't like me. Whatever shall I do?


Slapfighter?  Oh, my.  Get me my fainting couch!

The republicans were the minority party in the last part of Bush's presidency.  And not only did they set new records for obstructionism (since broken by them), but Bush used his veto crayon 10 times in those last two years.

How this makes the Dems (the majority party mind you) during that time frame as obstructionist as the current minority party I have no idea.  Unless, of course, you are a pathological liar.
 
2013-09-24 03:55:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate

Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."


It's true, but it does suggest there are problems with the polarization that otherwise uncontroversial votes are being held up by people who deny unanimous consent just to slow down the legislative train. How many times have executive and judicial nominees been confirmed by virtually unanimous votes after somebody forced a floor debate on their qualifications?
 
2013-09-24 03:58:03 PM  

Zafler: Has Bojangles ever posted in a thread and been relatively accurate about anything?


Nope, I quit trying to deal with him at all and stuffed him headfirst in the beehive. With the bees.
 
2013-09-24 04:02:19 PM  

Kittypie070: Zafler: Has Bojangles ever posted in a thread and been relatively accurate about anything?

Nope, I quit trying to deal with him at all and stuffed him headfirst in the beehive. With the bees.


Who then told him to buzz off.
 
2013-09-24 04:10:10 PM  

Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.


Not destroy themselves, create a bigger mess to blame on the Democrats.  It's always worked for them before.  Everything was Clinton's fault until 2008, when everything became Obama's fault (before he was even elected), despite there having been a chunk of time when the GOP held both houses of congress and the presidency and could do anything it wanted.

Anyone too smart to fall for that is already voting Democrat anyway (and probably uses birth control), so no loss to the GOP there.
 
2013-09-24 04:47:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate

Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."


You miss Beth's point.  He's stating that cloture numbers alone can't be used to estimate filibusters because filibusters don't need to be invoked in advance and as such you can assume that the filibuster is always potentially in play.  When any Senator refuses unanimous consent, the proper procedural step is to invoke cloture.
 
2013-09-24 05:34:00 PM  
How can we even think of passing a budget until we get to the bottom of Benghazigate..

We need more hearings
 
2013-09-24 05:36:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


So...vote republican?

Find me the time when dems seriously threatened tonraise the debt ceiling, coming so close on one of their bluffs that the US credit rating was downgraded, with said behavior specifically cited as the specific cause for the downgrade.

/but, but Pelosi?
 
2013-09-24 05:45:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


Yeah, it's too bad GWB didn't get whatever he wanted. The Patriot act seemed nice. Let's not forget No Child Left Behind, that would have really helped out education in this country. And poor big pharma really could have used that medicare part D thingy those mean ol dems obstructed.

/sarcasm mode off

When are you clowns going to give up all variations of both sides are bad?
 
2013-09-24 08:04:07 PM  
If we just used a Consensus system, we could have split a long time ago.  Crazyland can go that way, everyone else can go the other way, everybody's happy.
 
2013-09-24 08:11:24 PM  

dragonfire77: Rootus: why would you if you didn't have to?

My ex does...(not medicare, but our state's equivalent) because the benefits are better than what she can get in the private sector at her pay level.


Ive been there too. HSAs/high copay works fine for the boss, not at all for the low end.

/6 employees in the company
//family
///never work for family
 
2013-09-24 09:19:57 PM  
ambivalence:  I keep hearing how the GOP will blame Obama and democrats on whatever backlash comes out of a shutdown/default scenario, and it's true. But I think those same people fail to realize that the public isn't as willing to buy it as they have in the past. The GOP have used that tactic way too many times in the last decade and people, even loyal republicans, are catching on that the GOP is full of shiat.
==============================

I'm not so sure that the american public isn't still completely idiotic.  The GOP may be crazy and psychotic but somehow they always know exactly what strings to pull to not get farked over.

Otherwise, they'd have been voted out a long time ago (aside from the fact the dems are too pathetic to take advantage)
 
2013-09-24 11:40:26 PM  

Serious Black: BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate

Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."

It's true, but it does suggest there are problems with the polarization that otherwise uncontroversial votes are being held up by people who deny unanimous consent just to slow down the legislative train. How many times have executive and judicial nominees been confirmed by virtually unanimous votes after somebody forced a floor debate on their qualifications?


You're falling into trollboys logical fallicy.

In 2007-2008, Republicans weren't fillibustering bills like they are now to keep the president from getting a victory.  The Democrats had House and Senate.  The Republcians were fillibustering to keep the Democratic House and Senate from having any bills reach the pres, so the pres wouldn't have to get bad press by vetoing them.
 
2013-09-25 12:45:20 AM  
So people think the Senate will just take out the Obamacare stuff and call it a day? Um, no?
 
2013-09-25 01:18:04 AM  
Let me see if I've got this right: their trade-off for preventing a default - where one can't pay one's bills - is to reduce revenue? I'm not saying we don't have difficult problems to solve, but who the farking fark keeps electing these clowns?

If you could pinpoint a single moment when we lost any hope of fiscal sanity, it was July 2001 when we blew any chance of wisely using the projected surplus by issuing "tax rebates" which the Treasury paid for by borrowing $50+ billion in August.
 
2013-09-25 12:30:44 PM  

Serious Black: It's true, but it does suggest there are problems with the polarization that otherwise uncontroversial votes are being held up by people who deny unanimous consent just to slow down the legislative train.How many times have executive and judicial nominees been confirmed by virtually unanimous votes after somebody forced a floor debate on their qualifications?


(Satanic_Hamster: The Republcians were fillibustering to keep the Democratic House and Senate from having any bills reach the pres, so the pres wouldn't have to get bad press by vetoing them.)

Serious: I don't know off the top of my head, but I would steer clear of partisan blocked nominations as an example for "OMG, republitards are simply the worst!". After all, our current VP pretty much pioneered partisan obstruction for judicial nominees, and the democrats have a long history of same. Note that I said that Republicans are using tools developed by Democrats. I am not debating who is "worse".

We can go round and round about who doing worse more often, and as I said before, I'm not disputing that the current teabagger flavored congress is not worse than recent congresses, or that this is not a hyper-partisan and toxic environment. I completely agree that binary politico thinking is corroding our democracy and I say so in nearly every thread.

But this reflexive "Someone said something bad about my team, so I must say that their team is worse!" is NOT a counter, it is a continuation of the problem. The teabaggers are a reactionary group, and they are reacting against Pelosi and Reid's steamroller approach of "we got the votes, so suck it" approach even before Obama was nominated. They are reacting against massive expansion of government encroachment and spending, including under GW - remember that many teabaggers hate Georgie too and consider him to be "no true Scotsman". They may be wrong and blind zealots, but they do not exist in a vacuum. And Obama's strategy of derision, ridicule and refusal to accommodate, while understandable, is unproductive.

This isn't "BSABVR". This is "neither side is good and neither side is evil and neither side is on your side" or else "both sides are the same".  Binary politico teamthink is a sign of a weak intellect. The question is and should always be "Is THIS good policy?", not "Is THIS good for the party?".

So let's just skip past all the "which side is worse" nonsense. Many Farkers mistakenly assume I am a Republican, so here we go: "I AGREE that the teabaggers and right winger Republicans are being divisively partisan and making it worse ."

Now how many "left" Farkers can join me by saying "I AGREE that progressives and Democrats are being divisively partisan and making it worse."

Anyone?
 
2013-09-25 01:00:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: So let's just skip past all the "which side is worse" nonsense. Many Farkers mistakenly assume I am a Republican, so here we go: "I AGREE that the teabaggers and right winger Republicans are being divisively partisan and making it worse ."

Now how many "left" Farkers can join me by saying "I AGREE that progressives and Democrats are being divisively partisan and making it worse."

Anyone?


I consider myself a left-of-center independent and I know both sides are going "I only want what's good for the party". Sure, a decent amount of the ideas that Democrats have been trying to push through are more helpful to a greater amount of Americans than what the Republicans are trying to push through, but the bullheaded-ness of saying "You're wrong, I'm right" to every agenda on both sides is causing serious problems. Why can't we have compromise? Or instead, why can't we have good ideas that don't just benefit those who line your pockets? Corporate-sponsored representatives are terrible examples of the American people, red or blue.
 
2013-09-25 01:35:59 PM  

Triple Oak: Why can't we have compromise?


Honestly, I think it is because we have reached a point where both sides are convinced that the "other side" are bad actors. That they have harm as a goal, not just that they are wrong, but that the INTEND to do wrong.

And below that, there is a fundamental inability to accept or even comprehend that contrary and contradictory views can ALSO be valid. That even where there is disagreement that BOTH sides can legitimately be RIGHT.

Lastly, there is a pervasive tendency - a habit really- of seeing policies in terms of which "team" is responsible as the primary attribute, even before addressing things like efficacy. ACA is a good example for me. Even in the face of a host of objectively identifiable flaws, and serious problems, and a tangible lack of delivery of stated objectives, many will defend it against ANY criticism based solely on the fact that is originated from their "team". Often with an attempt to dismiss ANY criticisms by simply saying " You just don't like it because you like the 'other' team.

All of this boils down to the absurdity of Party Allegiance. We cannot have a dispassionate discussion of right governance and good policy in an environment so completely polluted by party allegiance as the primary concern.
 
Displayed 134 of 134 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report