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.

(Politico)   GOP's new plan, in lieu of passing a CR, is to pass small, individual bills funding one program at a time, and they just won't pass one for Obamacare   (politico.com) divider line 381
    More: Followup, House GOP, obamacare, GOP, White House, Senate, farm bills, House Majority Leader, House Republican Conference  
•       •       •

2371 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2013 at 3:22 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



381 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-01 01:20:13 PM
There's no chance in hell they do this - the last time they tried to do this a few months ago the GOP couldn't even get these bills out of committee due to an internal revolt.
 
2013-10-01 01:22:20 PM
Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.
 
2013-10-01 01:22:44 PM
I'll eat one cookie, and drink some soda, but hell NO I ain't eating my vegetables!
 
2013-10-01 01:23:19 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


You are correct. Makes all this even more hilarious.
 
2013-10-01 01:23:36 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


No one said these were smart people.
 
2013-10-01 01:25:35 PM
You don't have to be dumb as a rock to support the GOP, but it sure helps.
 
2013-10-01 01:33:14 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


shhhhhhh
 
2013-10-01 01:51:47 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


Correct.

They have to specifically DEFUND it. Which will obviously never make it to the house or past the veto.

These are the most pig ignorant goatfarkers ever to attempt governing.
 
2013-10-01 01:53:11 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


Why must you ruin it for everyone?!
 
2013-10-01 01:54:03 PM

DamnYankees: There's no chance in hell they do this - the last time they tried to do this a few months ago the GOP couldn't even get these bills out of committee due to an internal revolt.


Yup.  And the Democrats could say they won't fund any of these, but then one that makes a little sense could get to the Senate and the Dems will vote for it, which will have the House GOP crying about how unfair it is that they did that.

I hate to say it, but the Republicans are way better at messaging on this than I thought they would be.  They have front position on every news site blaming the Senate and lying about exemptions.  I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are.
 
2013-10-01 01:55:00 PM

Tigger: skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.

Correct.

They have to specifically DEFUND it. Which will obviously never make it to the house or past the veto.

These are the most pig ignorant goatfarkers ever to attempt governing.


sorry 'never make it to the senate'

point about pig ignorant goatfarkers obviously stands.
 
2013-10-01 01:55:13 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-01 01:58:37 PM

SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are


They have FOX News carrying their water for them.
 
2013-10-01 02:01:56 PM
What part of "NO" don't those goatfarkers get?

/yeah, yeah... two letters is a lot for them...
 
2013-10-01 02:06:18 PM

Marcus Aurelius: SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are

They have FOX News carrying their water for them.


There are huge groups of people who given a choice between adjusting their point of view and being right versus being wrong, looking stupid, lying and not having to change what they are saying, will pick the latter.

It doesn't make sense to sane people.
 
2013-10-01 02:08:28 PM
The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.
 
2013-10-01 02:09:06 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate House with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


FTFM
 
2013-10-01 02:09:45 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: What part of "NO" don't those goatfarkers get?


Hmm, maybe we should rephrase it as "baa," followed by a swift headbutt to the groin. They might understand then.
 
2013-10-01 02:31:33 PM

Tigger: These are the most pig ignorant goatfarkers ever to attempt governing.


That's not what they're attempting.  But the rest of your premise is sound.
 
2013-10-01 02:34:32 PM

SnakeLee: I hate to say it, but the Republicans are way better at messaging on this than I thought they would be.


They've always been better at getting their message across.

They know you need to get out there and SHOW people what they should believe. The Democrats still think that letting events speak for themselves is an effective counter to this.
 
2013-10-01 02:44:22 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


And all the rest of the funding attached with a simple majority vote after cloture.  They can easily do that.  Then after the first one goes back to the house and Boehner refuses to do anything with it, laugh their asses off as the Senate Republicans have to filibuster any additional House bills.
 
2013-10-01 02:44:32 PM
The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.
 
2013-10-01 02:45:18 PM
This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.
 
2013-10-01 02:49:54 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


You're SO above average!
 
2013-10-01 02:58:31 PM

DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is.


It's a Republican plan. What else did you expect?
 
2013-10-01 03:04:53 PM
Tea Qaeda spokesperson Michele Bachmann has already claimed GOP ownership of the shutdown: "It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it." She also thinks a miracle from God will force Obama to defund the ACA.

So you knuckledragging redneck apolgists can stop pretending that A) this shutdown is anyone's fault but the GOP's, and B) that your party isn't pants-on-head crazy.
 
2013-10-01 03:05:53 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.
 
2013-10-01 03:05:57 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


um... obamacare is already funded. you do know that, right?
 
2013-10-01 03:06:32 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Tigger: These are the most pig ignorant goatfarkers ever to attempt governing.

That's not what they're attempting.  But the rest of your premise is sound.


I accept your correction.

These are the most pig ignorant goatfarkers ever to pig ignorantly goatfark
 
2013-10-01 03:06:34 PM
That's going to take a while. A long time actually. Apparently thee guys don't read the appropriations bills either.
 
2013-10-01 03:08:46 PM
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
 
2013-10-01 03:09:52 PM
Take it a step further! Insist that each individual government employee's time card be sent to Congress where it must be signed by a majority of both the House and Senate.

/Jethro Q. Bunn Whackett Buzzard Stubble and Boot Walrustitty 2016!
 
2013-10-01 03:10:41 PM
Banning omnibus spending bills and bill riders is an excellent idea.
 
2013-10-01 03:10:44 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the House with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


I was going to suggest they simply put the Senate budget on as a rider, but I like your notion better.

Marcus Aurelius: You're SO above

far from average!

FTFY?
 
2013-10-01 03:19:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.


Why do you see that as a problem?
 
2013-10-01 03:22:40 PM
All of this bullshiate isnt even about a real budget- this is about a continuing resolution to keep spending at current levels until mid December- when we would have to do this all over again.

They are arguing over funding the government for 6 weeks.
 
2013-10-01 03:23:26 PM

vernonFL: All of this bullshiate isnt even about a real budget- this is about a continuing resolution to keep spending at current levels until mid December- when we would have to do this all over again.

They are arguing over funding the government for 6 weeks.


Mid-December would be 10 weeks. Mid-November is 6 weeks.
 
2013-10-01 03:24:16 PM
Oops
 
2013-10-01 03:25:27 PM
That poor, poor chicken.
 
2013-10-01 03:25:27 PM
until nothing but the military passes the purity test, of course.

all it takes is a drudge link saying the national park system benefits abortions, DC trashmen get healthcare, or something goofy like that... and boehner's sitting all alone again.
 
2013-10-01 03:25:56 PM

FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

um... obamacare is already funded. you do know that, right?


You realize who you're talking to?
 
2013-10-01 03:26:32 PM

DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.


Actually I think this is a great plan. There is a ton of Pork projects that might not make it through this process. Obamacare would keep going, but the budget could really get a good decent trimming.
 
2013-10-01 03:26:46 PM
Krauthammer came up this plan last night on O'Reilly, glad to see the house is scanning TV for ideas to complete their master plan.
 
2013-10-01 03:26:54 PM
Here's their brilliant plan:

They offered the Senate a bill that funded everything but Obamacare. It failed.

Now they will offer several bills that fund everything but Obamacare. It will not fail, because...


This is even worse than their attempt at the piecemeal idiocy previously, because then the clever plan was to get a vote on things that they believed some vulnerable Democrats wouldn't vote against, that wouldn't pass as part of the combined bill. That's not the case this time. The vulnerable Democrats already voted against all of the nice bits with delaying Obamacare attached. Splitting it into several pieces makes absolutely no difference, but such is their desperation that this seems like a novel new strategy.
 
2013-10-01 03:28:05 PM

MindStalker: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

Actually I think this is a great plan. There is a ton of Pork projects that might not make it through this process. Obamacare would keep going, but the budget could really get a good decent trimming.


Ah yes - "pork". The conservative word for "spending I don't like".
 
2013-10-01 03:28:08 PM
They would need House Dems to vote for this in order to pass it before it gets shot down in the Senate which they've already said they would do before it ever got near Obama's desk.

It is just more theater.  They will hold out until the debt ceiling and I fear even past that.  You won't get a CR anytime soon.  They are going to chuck the baby and the bath water.
 
2013-10-01 03:28:46 PM
Are.... are they that passive aggressive?

I mean, it still counts.  It is still on the books.  ACA hasn't gone away.
 
2013-10-01 03:29:57 PM
So once again, the Republicans are "shutting down the government" by funding the government.
 
2013-10-01 03:30:06 PM
memedepot.com
 
2013-10-01 03:30:49 PM

Rann Xerox: That poor, poor chicken.


At this point they've raped that thing so many times it's nothing more than a glob of grease at the bottom of a KFC bucket.
 
2013-10-01 03:31:50 PM
Well, it looks like the wingers have finally received their talking points.
 
2013-10-01 03:31:58 PM
Wouldn't that take a very long time?
 
2013-10-01 03:32:02 PM
randomjsa: [Nothing of consequence.]
 
2013-10-01 03:32:12 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


Sure, Ted Cruz's shutdown doesn't affect Obamacare anyway. But these are stressful times. You might want to hit up an exchange and sign up so you can get a general checkup.
 
2013-10-01 03:32:15 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Tea Qaeda spokesperson Michele Bachmann has already claimed GOP ownership of the shutdown: "It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it." She also thinks a miracle from God will force Obama to defund the ACA.

So you knuckledragging redneck apolgists can stop pretending that A) this shutdown is anyone's fault but the GOP's, and B) that your party isn't pants-on-head crazy.


And C) that you can somehow keep the rest of the country from noticing A and B.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/01/the-morn in g-plum-republicans-enter-the-danger-zone/?hpid=z4
 
2013-10-01 03:32:46 PM
Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.
 
2013-10-01 03:33:49 PM

In House GOP meeting, Gohmert pushed for military pay bill in conf. committee; Boehner replied: 'Louie, that bill has already been signed'

- Russell Berman (@russellberman) October 1, 2013


He are smart.
 
2013-10-01 03:35:32 PM

Albino Squid: Now they will offer several bills that fund everything but Obamacare. It will not fail, because...


It shouldn't fail because there is no reason for Harry Reid to deny funding to things that have nothing to do with Obamacare.  He has already agreed to a piecemeal bill that would fund military salaries.  How can he say no to the National Parks and other things that are unrelated to Obamacare?
 
2013-10-01 03:36:19 PM
No
 
2013-10-01 03:36:27 PM
Strike two.
 
2013-10-01 03:36:44 PM

SkinnyHead: Albino Squid: Now they will offer several bills that fund everything but Obamacare. It will not fail, because...

It shouldn't fail because there is no reason for Harry Reid to deny funding to things that have nothing to do with Obamacare.  He has already agreed to a piecemeal bill that would fund military salaries.  How can he say no to the National Parks and other things that are unrelated to Obamacare?


Because he doesn't have his morning Weetabix swimming in paste, and thus can perhaps see through their clever plan?
 
2013-10-01 03:37:14 PM
It took these bumbling retards 2 years to agree on a Farm Bill that 80% of them supported, and even then they could only get it through by breaking it up into seperate pieces.   Even on something that was a slam dunk no brainier like disaster relief after Sandy, they were at each other's throats and breaking out into civil wars.   You really think they could agree to dismantle and pass the entire federal budget item by item?    The entire premise ignores the basic underlying problem that a small, but ridiculously powerful, faction of the Republican caucus utterly hates the American government and specifically believes they were sent to Washington to sabotage it from the inside.
 
2013-10-01 03:37:55 PM

DamnYankees: MindStalker: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

Actually I think this is a great plan. There is a ton of Pork projects that might not make it through this process. Obamacare would keep going, but the budget could really get a good decent trimming.

Ah yes - "pork". The conservative word for "spending I don't like that doesn't seem to directly and immediately benefit me".


Just a minor update.
 
2013-10-01 03:38:22 PM
Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) took to Twitter to say "We fought the good fight. Time for a clean CR." Boehner would need more than 100 Republicans to take that position to preserve his internal politics.

COWARD
 
2013-10-01 03:39:47 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


Better, amend the bill replacing all of the text of the bill with a clean CR, just don't change the title. Then when they don't bring it back up for a vote, you say see they wouldn't even consider it.
 
2013-10-01 03:40:27 PM
Harry Reid's government shutdown.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-01 03:40:47 PM
Quick question: let's say the Senate agreed to this stupid plan, and they funded every program one-by-one with separate bills. Approximately how long would that take?
 
2013-10-01 03:41:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.


that's enough with the truth.
 
2013-10-01 03:41:50 PM

SkinnyHead: Harry Reid's government shutdown


www.photo-host.org
 
2013-10-01 03:42:09 PM

red5ish: Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) took to Twitter to say "We fought the good fight. Time for a clean CR." Boehner would need more than 100 Republicans to take that position to preserve his internal politics.

COWARD


I don't think Rigell's position means much. He was the one GOP vote against the defund Obamacare CR which started this.
 
2013-10-01 03:42:24 PM
So, what happens first: Boehner and the less-crazy Republicans in the House just say "eff it" and go ahead and pass a clean continuing resolution with the House Democrats, or enough of the more-crazy Republicans flip and bail Boehner out?

My money is on the second one because Boehner has the spine of an amoeba.
 
2013-10-01 03:42:24 PM
I wonder if the GOP has thought about what kind of precedent they are setting.

One day there will be a Republican President and a Democratic Majority House.
 
2013-10-01 03:42:32 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: In House GOP meeting, Gohmert pushed for military pay bill in conf. committee; Boehner replied: 'Louie, that bill has already been signed'- Russell Berman (@russellberman) October 1, 2013

He are smart.


Louie Gohmert is proof positive that someone in a persistent vegetative state can still maintain a meaningful quality of life.
 
2013-10-01 03:43:12 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.

Why do you see that as a problem?


It's a problem with the GOP's plan. I didn't say it was a problem for me.
 
2013-10-01 03:43:34 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


I like it!  I mean, it funds everything that needs to be funded, the ACA retains the funding it needs, and everyone wins!  In fact...when you think about it...it seems like it would have been simpler to lump all the funding together into a single approval.  Why didn't they just do that?  I mean, it would have avoided this entire mess, and would have the same inevitable end result!

/Vote for Cat's Breath 2014!
 
2013-10-01 03:43:57 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.


You're thinking of omnibus spending bills, I believe.
 
2013-10-01 03:44:32 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.


I think the CR is just a measure to fill the gap because no actual budget has made its way through our bicameral system in quite a while
 
2013-10-01 03:44:38 PM

Marcus Aurelius: SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are

They have FOX News carrying their water for them.


Yeah, see this isn't really a government "shutdown", it's more like a happy little "slimdown".

retired.talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2013-10-01 03:44:45 PM

SkinnyHead: He has already agreed to a piecemeal bill that would fund military salaries. How can he say no to the National Parks and other things that are unrelated to Obamacare?


Because the military is in harms way, and needs money to maintain their threat assessment matrix. Defunding this makes our troops vulnerable to attack.

The only threat in the national parks is Smokey Bear.

But hey, if you want to enrage the Democrats, go right ahead (hell, you've done it already). What goes around, comes around. You may not see the consequences of GOP actions now, but you'll find out what they are soon enough.
 
2013-10-01 03:45:17 PM
the repeated use of the word piecemeal in this thread has made me hungry for chicken
 
2013-10-01 03:45:28 PM
Ever feel like John Boehner is trapped in his own personal purgatory where is is forced to try to sell gradually more insane Tea Party strategies all the while screaming "It's not going to work you dumb Farkers!!!!"   Do you think one day he is just going to snap?  I mean how much more degrading does this need to get for him?
 
2013-10-01 03:45:31 PM
SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are.


It's because the reporters covering this clusterfark are more concerned about keeping their access than they are about informing the public.

You can't fill a 24 hour news channel without lots of "interviews".
 
2013-10-01 03:45:36 PM
Wow this sounds great just do it and maybe to save time just write it all down on one paper.
 
2013-10-01 03:45:48 PM

SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are.


Because of idiot constituents who treat party affiliation like old school marriage or high school sports.  And lobbyists that target legislators from states with only 3 EV.
 
2013-10-01 03:46:10 PM

OhioUGrad: the repeated use of the word piecemeal in this thread has made me hungry for chicken


Make sure the GOP doesn't get to it first.
 
2013-10-01 03:46:20 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: SkinnyHead: Harry Reid's government shutdown

[www.photo-host.org image 402x408]


She even said  "People will be very grateful"
 
2013-10-01 03:46:50 PM

mainstreet62: Defunding this makes our troops vulnerable to attack.


Also if the troops don't get paid they're released from their contracts. Basically if the paychecks don't show up, they can walk.
 
2013-10-01 03:46:58 PM
Obligatory?

 25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-10-01 03:47:30 PM

Skyrmion: img.fark.net


holy. boiled. owl. shiat.

i think foxnews.com just broke my wookie.
 
2013-10-01 03:47:42 PM

Car_Ramrod: Quick question: let's say the Senate agreed to this stupid plan, and they funded every program one-by-one with separate bills. Approximately how long would that take?


Senate passed the military pay bill with a voice vote or unanimous consent, something like that takes hardly no time at all.  Other piecemeal funding bills can be passed through just as quickly.
 
2013-10-01 03:47:43 PM
Up next:

Harry Reid attaches legislation to each piecemeal funding measure that makes gerrymandering illegal.
 
2013-10-01 03:48:16 PM
Someone find him and physically slap him.

This isn't Reid's shutdown.


img.fark.net


img.fark.net


img.fark.net
 
2013-10-01 03:48:27 PM
No

POTUS can't have a line item budget

No piece-meal CR that will take the rest of the decade to get through

No

You have a clean bill, PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE

This is no longer a power play, a smart tactic, fiscal conservatism, or even a statement of ideology - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court

No
 
2013-10-01 03:48:55 PM
Oh and as to the GOP piecemeal plan--Reid should just take every half-assed spending bill and amend it to be a complete CR, pass it, then send it back to the House :trollface:
 
2013-10-01 03:48:56 PM

mainstreet62: Up next:

Harry Reid attaches legislation to each piecemeal funding measure that makes gerrymandering illegal.


A lot of his Democratic friends in the House would not be happy with him.
 
2013-10-01 03:49:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.

You're thinking of omnibus spending bills, I believe.


Checked Wiki. Looks like this is done for all discretionary spending, usually. If time does not permit, then they roll into an omnibus. But they can't even do THAT without bickering, so we get CRs. Looks like last Omnibus was in 2009.
 
2013-10-01 03:49:34 PM
As much as I hate stooping down to someone's level, the GOP rhetoric is occupying WAY too much airtime in the news.

Democrats need to make a concession: agree to delay Obamacare for a year if the GOP agrees to ban assault rifles... or a massive tax hike on the 1%.

Oh, that goes against your agenda?!?!?!  It's non-negotiable?!?!?!

Welcome to COMPROMISE 101, asshats....
 
2013-10-01 03:49:42 PM
farking insanity
 
ecl
2013-10-01 03:49:51 PM

Skyrmion: Marcus Aurelius: SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are

They have FOX News carrying their water for them.

Yeah, see this isn't really a government "shutdown", it's more like a happy little "slimdown".

[retired.talkingpointsmemo.com image 742x600]


I feel dirty just looking at that screencap.
 
2013-10-01 03:49:53 PM

OhioUGrad: the repeated use of the word piecemeal in this thread has made me hungry for chicken


I heard under Obamacare we will no longer be allowed to eat fried chicken. Only broccoli
 
2013-10-01 03:49:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.


Actually that is more or less how it normally works now. The CR isn't actually a budget, it is a appropriation bill. The budget is basically a non-binding resolution to say this is where we want the money to go. Then each committee associated with the department goes off an creates an appropriation build that actually requests a specific dollar amount and specifies where those dollars actually go. The CR basically says since we are incapable of actually governing and passing the appropriation bills as we are supposed to, use the last passed versions usually with a increase for inflation when there is some and assign the same proportional amounts to each department it got last time.

The crux of the issue is the house republicans are fighting among them selves over appropriations and end up getting appropriation bills so right wing they have a hard time passing with just their caucus, which means it will never pass the senate. Basically the arguments about passing a budget are retarded because it is almost by definition a political document rather then anything of policy value, especially in a divided government, and at the end of the day are basically tossed in the trash once the appropriations process starts.
 
2013-10-01 03:50:04 PM

Tigger: skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.

Correct.

They have to specifically DEFUND it. Which will obviously never make it to the house or past the veto.

These are the most pig ignorant goatfarkers ever to attempt governing.


Are we sure healthcare is their endgame?  Maybe it's something else on the agenda.  Food stamps?  The US Postal Service?  NPR?  Planned Parenthood
 
2013-10-01 03:50:06 PM

Cletus C.: mainstreet62: Up next:

Harry Reid attaches legislation to each piecemeal funding measure that makes gerrymandering illegal.

A lot of his Democratic friends in the House would not be happy with him.


I think you're full of it, but who gives a shiat?

Congress isn't working? Blow it up completely, and start from scratch.
 
2013-10-01 03:50:12 PM

WhyteRaven74: mainstreet62: Defunding this makes our troops vulnerable to attack.

Also if the troops don't get paid they're released from their contracts. Basically if the paychecks don't show up, they can walk.


Military is not effected by the shutdown.  Jeez people I thought we were smarter than that.  Plus NO not getting paid doesn't mean they can walk, for the love of god.  When you were a kid and the bus didn't show up within 10 min of it's scheduled time that meant you had a free day off of school too huh?
 
2013-10-01 03:50:37 PM

serial_crusher: Are we sure healthcare is their endgame?  Maybe it's something else on the agenda.  Food stamps?  The US Postal Service?  NPR?  Planned Parenthood


stockpiling potatoes.
 
2013-10-01 03:50:59 PM
FTFA: House Republicans are trying to pressure Democrats on their side of the dome. The bills will come up under suspension of the rules, which means they must garner two-thirds of the chamber for passage.

i.imgur.com

And they raised the threshold for passage to 2/3?

That's not going to happen.
 
2013-10-01 03:52:01 PM

SkinnyHead: Car_Ramrod: Quick question: let's say the Senate agreed to this stupid plan, and they funded every program one-by-one with separate bills. Approximately how long would that take?

Senate passed the military pay bill with a voice vote or unanimous consent, something like that takes hardly no time at all.  Other piecemeal funding bills can be passed through just as quickly.


I kind of like the idea of arguing for and against each thing individually.  Might cut down on the number of "I haven't had time to read the whole bill so I need to sign it to find out what's in it" moments.
 
2013-10-01 03:52:05 PM
Amendments to add all funding to each bill. And a debt ceiling increase.

That's a compromise. The republicans get the funding they want, and the government reopens. Win win.
 
2013-10-01 03:53:08 PM

amiable: Ever feel like John Boehner is trapped in his own personal purgatory where is is forced to try to sell gradually more insane Tea Party strategies all the while screaming "It's not going to work you dumb Farkers!!!!"   Do you think one day he is just going to snap?  I mean how much more degrading does this need to get for him?


Hehe, actually yeah, I do feel like that sometimes.

/It helps when he cries
 
2013-10-01 03:54:16 PM

StubePT: As much as I hate stooping down to someone's level, the GOP rhetoric is occupying WAY too much airtime in the news.

Democrats need to make a concession: agree to delay Obamacare for a year if the GOP agrees to ban assault rifles... or a massive tax hike on the 1%.

Oh, that goes against your agenda?!?!?!  It's non-negotiable?!?!?!

Welcome to COMPROMISE 101, asshats....


Just the tax hike, or abolishing the debt ceiling.

Gun control is more of a third rail than Social Security at the moment, and a lot of people that are upset with the Republicans will switch to supporting them because of that one single issue.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.

Why do you see that as a problem?

It's a problem with the GOP's plan. I didn't say it was a problem for me.


Looks like we're making progress here.  You would urge Harry Reid to accept this approach and approve any piecemeal funding bills that come from the house, to fund as much of government as possible.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:36 PM

Somacandra: That's not going to happen.


But they will still debate it at 4:30.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram

House expecting to debate bill to fund Vets, Parks/Smithsonian & allow DC gov't to operate at 4:30 pm et


Nothing is happening today except clown shoes.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:41 PM

StubePT: As much as I hate stooping down to someone's level, the GOP rhetoric is occupying WAY too much airtime in the news.

Democrats need to make a concession: agree to delay Obamacare for a year if the GOP agrees to ban assault rifles... or a massive tax hike on the 1%.

Oh, that goes against your agenda?!?!?!  It's non-negotiable?!?!?!

Welcome to COMPROMISE 101, asshats....


LOL this.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:49 PM

DamnYankees: There's no chance in hell they do this - the last time they tried to do this a few months ago the GOP couldn't even get these bills out of committee due to an internal revolt.


If they couldn't even pass a farm bill, there is no way that the majority of government gets funded by this process.  Basically, they're trying to break government down into small enough pieces that they can drown each individual piece in the bathtub.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:30 PM
SI heard this on the radio this morning. I think it was Laura Ingram who had a GoP Senator on. He told her "we got these small bills through to make sure that our military would be and individual bills for other essential employees. Yesterday Obama gave a speech and listed Parks and other government services. So we are going to go down that list and make sure that one by one each one gets funded. Then we can say 'OK Mr. Obama, we have compromised now it is your turn, delay the individual mandate for one year."

It was kinda surreal, they are going to cave on 'shutting down the govenrnment' one CR at a time and then try to act like they took the high road.

And then I got sad, because I realized most of the people listening to that show would buy it.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:43 PM

vernonFL: I wonder if the GOP has thought about what kind of precedent they are setting.

One day there will be a Republican President and a Democratic Majority House.


Do you ever think there will just be a President and a House?
 
2013-10-01 03:55:48 PM
I like how the GOP thinks they've won something.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:53 PM
Not the worst strategy in the world, but they're doing it far too early for it to work. Left a week, failure to resolve the shutdown will be more of a plague on both houses. That's when it becomes much harder for the Dems to make the case that it's right they should refuse to discuss funding individual measures.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:57 PM

Rann Xerox: That poor, poor chicken.


I think it's more like chicken pate by now.
simplevegetarianrecipe.com
 
2013-10-01 03:56:25 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


Ok, can someone help me out here.  How is this?
Im not doubting it, I'm just having trouble understand it.

I know a lot of the ACA is basically regulations (like getting rid of lifetime limits, and allowing for pre-existing condition, etc) that do not really need funding.

Is it that the rest relies on the exchanges that are expected to be self funded?
Is it this simple, or is there more to it?
 
2013-10-01 03:56:30 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.

Why do you see that as a problem?

It's a problem with the GOP's plan. I didn't say it was a problem for me.

Looks like we're making progress here.  You would urge Harry Reid to accept this approach and approve any piecemeal funding bills that come from the house, to fund as much of government as possible.


And when each comes back with a portion of funding for the missing Obamacare funds, Boehner should push that!

It's compromise!
 
2013-10-01 03:56:50 PM

heap: Skyrmion: [img.fark.net image 742x600]

holy. boiled. owl. shiat.

i think foxnews.com just broke my wookie.


It's nice that derpers have their own language to describe things, it makes it easy to know who they are.
 
2013-10-01 03:58:48 PM

Stile4aly: DamnYankees: There's no chance in hell they do this - the last time they tried to do this a few months ago the GOP couldn't even get these bills out of committee due to an internal revolt.

If they couldn't even pass a farm bill, there is no way that the majority of government gets funded by this process.  Basically, they're trying to break government down into small enough pieces that they can drown each individual piece in the bathtub.


Here's a bathtub they can use.

abcnews.go.com
 
2013-10-01 03:59:10 PM

blastoh: skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.

Ok, can someone help me out here.  How is this?
Im not doubting it, I'm just having trouble understand it.

I know a lot of the ACA is basically regulations (like getting rid of lifetime limits, and allowing for pre-existing condition, etc) that do not really need funding.

Is it that the rest relies on the exchanges that are expected to be self funded?
Is it this simple, or is there more to it?


The funding was and is already secured.  They wanted to pull the existing funding, but dropped that and instead are focusing on the one thing in the legislation people don't like, the individual mandate.

Now it seems they are back to trying to defund it again, something that is overwhelmingly rejected by the American people.
 
2013-10-01 03:59:47 PM

MindStalker: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

Actually I think this is a great plan. There is a ton of Pork projects that might not make it through this process. Obamacare would keep going, but the budget could really get a good decent trimming.


Like Welfare and Food Stamps.
 
2013-10-01 04:00:13 PM

parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court


What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.
 
2013-10-01 04:00:32 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Somacandra: That's not going to happen.

But they will still debate it at 4:30.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram

House expecting to debate bill to fund Vets, Parks/Smithsonian & allow DC gov't to operate at 4:30 pm et

Nothing is happening today except clown shoes.


Same as the sequester--reopen the visible pieces and let the rest starve.
 
2013-10-01 04:01:17 PM

Headso: heap: Skyrmion: [img.fark.net image 742x600]

holy. boiled. owl. shiat.

i think foxnews.com just broke my wookie.

It's nice that derpers have their own language to describe things, it makes it easy to know who they are.


it's just straight up 'i reject your reality and substitute my own' type stuff, but without even a casual wink given to how self deluded they aim to be.
 
2013-10-01 04:01:27 PM
Serial Crusher: I kind of like the idea of arguing for and against each thing individually.  Might cut down on the number of "I haven't had time to read the whole bill so I need to sign it to find out what's in it" moments.

I can't be too clear on this - part of the JOB of being an elected representative of the people is to understand what has already been agreed to - a clean CR and the new law ACA falls into that category at this time.

Saying we can afford to keep the United States "closed" because "I need time to read all this stuff and then argue about it" is a monumental failure and, I suspect, a way to reject tea party ideas of "overspending" on programs,

You do remember how many people are not being paid right now?
 
2013-10-01 04:01:38 PM

acchief: parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court

What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.


They tried that.  Boehner put a stop to it regarding a jet engine the military doesn't want but is built in his district, as well as a lot of other military hardware the Pentagon says we don't need.
 
2013-10-01 04:01:38 PM

DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.


I think the goal is more to fund only the most visible and sympathetic parts of government, like National Parks and Veteran's benefits, so that as few middle and upper class people as possible feel the pinch. That way people who tend to vote and donate more to candidates will be only slightly inconvenienced and won't be calling their congressmen to demand an end to this bullshiat. It is also intended to make people think "Well, this isn't so bad, maybe we could cut a ton of government services if this is the worst that happens from shutting the whole thing down".

Of course in the long term more acute effects might start to show up, but the GOP is betting things don't get that far.
 
2013-10-01 04:02:17 PM

acchief: parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court

What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.


The time to itemize your belongings for your homeowners insurance is not while the house is currently on fire.
 
2013-10-01 04:02:18 PM

amiable: Ever feel like John Boehner is trapped in his own personal purgatory where is is forced to try to sell gradually more insane Tea Party strategies all the while screaming "It's not going to work you dumb Farkers!!!!"   Do you think one day he is just going to snap?  I mean how much more degrading does this need to get for him?


I can't help but feel a little sorry for Boehner.  He'll go down as one of the worst Speakers in history, even though a lot of the problems he's had aren't entirely his fault.  If he was Speaker at any other time in the last 100 years or so, it could be a completely different story.

That said, on the shutdown he's in the wrong completely.  He has the power to put a clean CR on the floor, and he's refusing to do so.
 
2013-10-01 04:02:22 PM

Paul Baumer: shower_in_my_socks: Tea Qaeda spokesperson Michele Bachmann has already claimed GOP ownership of the shutdown: "It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it." She also thinks a miracle from God will force Obama to defund the ACA.

So you knuckledragging redneck apolgists can stop pretending that A) this shutdown is anyone's fault but the GOP's, and B) that your party isn't pants-on-head crazy.

And C) that you can somehow keep the rest of the country from noticing A and B.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/01/the-morn in g-plum-republicans-enter-the-danger-zone/?hpid=z4


forums.watchuseek.com
 
2013-10-01 04:02:57 PM

DarwiOdrade: [memedepot.com image 100x100]


i586.photobucket.com

i586.photobucket.com

i586.photobucket.com

i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-01 04:03:08 PM

Skyrmion: Marcus Aurelius: SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are

They have FOX News carrying their water for them.

Yeah, see this isn't really a government "shutdown", it's more like a happy little "slimdown".

[retired.talkingpointsmemo.com image 742x600]


Silmdowns sounds double plus good.
 
2013-10-01 04:03:14 PM
SKINNYHEAD,


You will buy me 2 years of total fark, but I want them in individual 1 month bits.


YOU HAVE UNTIL 6PM TODAY TO COMPLY!

//Its so sad that SkinnyHead is the best troll Ive seen in weeks.
 
2013-10-01 04:04:09 PM

heap: Headso: heap: Skyrmion: [img.fark.net image 742x600]

holy. boiled. owl. shiat.

i think foxnews.com just broke my wookie.

It's nice that derpers have their own language to describe things, it makes it easy to know who they are.

it's just straight up 'i reject your reality and substitute my own' type stuff, but without even a casual wink given to how self deluded they aim to be.


Hey don't knock it, their unskewed polls and echo chamber worked to get Romney elected... remember those sweet fireworks over boston habah?
 
2013-10-01 04:04:54 PM

Target Builder: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

I think the goal is more to fund only the most visible and sympathetic parts of government, like National Parks and Veteran's benefits, so that as few middle and upper class people as possible feel the pinch. That way people who tend to vote and donate more to candidates will be only slightly inconvenienced and won't be calling their congressmen to demand an end to this bullshiat. It is also intended to make people think "Well, this isn't so bad, maybe we could cut a ton of government services if this is the worst that happens from shutting the whole thing down".

Of course in the long term more acute effects might start to show up, but the GOP is betting things don't get that far.


This is exactly right, but again, it makes no sense. This isn't a "trick". The Democrats are willing to fund all of this. If they are going to do it piecemeal, just do it all at once. What's the point otherwise? There's nothing the Dems want funded in the CR that the Reps don't.
 
2013-10-01 04:04:58 PM

ArkPanda: Same as the sequester--reopen the visible pieces and let the rest starve.


These baby CRs won't pass the House let alone the Senate.  Chuck Schumer is already saying it's cynical and people shouldn't have to choose between opening national parks and enrolling kids in Head Start.

Funny:

@brianbeutler
It's not going to stop being the case that there's one viable government funding bill in existence and Harry Reid has already passed it.
 
2013-10-01 04:04:58 PM
acchief:
What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.

Not a damn thing - In fact, the House was presented with a budget they could have examined last spring. The time to examine the budget isn't when you've shut down the government.
This is another delay, period.
 
2013-10-01 04:05:09 PM
Attach a rider to every funding bill with heavy gun control. Then start counting down from the number of times they have tried to go after the ACA. Make those farkers burn in hell.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:00 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.

You're thinking of omnibus spending bills, I believe.

Checked Wiki. Looks like this is done for all discretionary spending, usually. If time does not permit, then they roll into an omnibus. But they can't even do THAT without bickering, so we get CRs. Looks like last Omnibus was in 2009.


Huh.  I wonder what changed...
 
2013-10-01 04:06:24 PM
You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:27 PM

blastoh: skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.

Ok, can someone help me out here.  How is this?
Im not doubting it, I'm just having trouble understand it.

I know a lot of the ACA is basically regulations (like getting rid of lifetime limits, and allowing for pre-existing condition, etc) that do not really need funding.

Is it that the rest relies on the exchanges that are expected to be self funded?
Is it this simple, or is there more to it?


The subsidies are mandatory spending, as are the funds for most of the sites and exchanges themselves.  As such, the DHHS had the authority to look at the ACA implementation as a whole and say, "This is all exceptional work (in the "exception to the rules" meaning), so they stay running."

They had to move budgets around a little to cover ~ $1 billion, IIRC, but that's it.  A prolonged shutdown will have adverse trickle-down effects no matter what, but the basic funding itself is not appropriated and so not affected by the shutdown.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:31 PM

Lost Thought 00: MindStalker: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

Actually I think this is a great plan. There is a ton of Pork projects that might not make it through this process. Obamacare would keep going, but the budget could really get a good decent trimming.

Like Welfare and Food Stamps.



That was my thought as well; pass no-brainer bills like re-funding things like the EPA and NOAA, but leave out the social programs like WIC and other assistance programs. Then try and use those to get ACA un-funded. It still won't work but they may try it anyway.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:49 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
 
2013-10-01 04:07:51 PM
So basically they are trying to open up the portions of the government that they like and leave closed the ones they don't like in exchange for obamacare being repealed. Then they wanna call that compromise.
They want to do less than a full CR which is what the Dems. want and they expect to get everything they want out of the deal.
They are trying to dismantle the US government by shutting it all down and only opening back up the stuff they want.
That takes some gall.
 
2013-10-01 04:08:24 PM

Deneb81: acchief: parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court

What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.

The time to itemize your belongings for your homeowners insurance is not while the house is currently on fire.


But the house is always on fire. If everyday wasn't a crisis, nobody would know what to do, nor have the spine to do it.
 
2013-10-01 04:08:31 PM
At what point is it appropriate and necessary to define both the GOP and Tea Party as terrorist organizations, lock everybody up until and unless they promise to both act like freakin' adults and do their sworn duty as elected officials?  I mean, they've now done demonstrable harm to the United States, in terms of dollars, in terms of human cost.  What, exactly makes them not enemies of the state at this point?  They're organized, and seeking to affect the functioning of the state in an adversarial way by sowing chaos.

They're not objecting and trying to change or even overthrow a corrupt, incompetent, or tyrannical government.  They're trying to TAKE OVER and install their own corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical government.

Before you all rip into me, I'd rather not do this.  Really.  Everyone, elected or otherwise, has the right to disagree with the government and seek redress of grievances.  This is so not that.  It is abuse of political power to affect discord and destruction.  If it's not a crime, it bloody well ought to be.

I'm not an idiot.  I know this won't affect the majority of citizens in any significant way, at least not in the short term - which is probably the point they want to prove.  It's the precedent that bothers me.  Next time the blackmail may kill something more significant to the nation than park rangers' jobs.  Never mind the fact that it matters to you if you're a ranger...
 
2013-10-01 04:08:39 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.

Why do you see that as a problem?

It's a problem with the GOP's plan. I didn't say it was a problem for me.

Looks like we're making progress here.  You would urge Harry Reid to accept this approach and approve any piecemeal funding bills that come from the house, to fund as much of government as possible.


Sure. Or they could just pass them all at once in some sort of continuing resolution. Why take longer and do it separately?
 
2013-10-01 04:08:44 PM

Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.


The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.
 
2013-10-01 04:08:59 PM

David Stockton, formerly of the Fed, estimates a shutdown costs 0.15 percent of GDP growth a week.

- Annie Lowrey (@AnnieLowrey) October 1, 2013


I'm sure this will help with the dreaded economic uncertainty Republicans seem to be so concerned about.
 
2013-10-01 04:09:01 PM
 
2013-10-01 04:09:59 PM

Deneb81: And when each comes back with a portion of funding for the missing Obamacare funds, Boehner should push that!

It's compromise!


We've got a reasonable proposal for ending Harry Reid's shutdown on the table, but it looks like some of you just don't want it to end.  The National Parks shouldn't be the battleground for Obamacare.  We should fund those things that we agree should get funding, and confine the battle only to those things in controversy.
 
2013-10-01 04:11:10 PM

SkinnyHead: We should fund those things that we agree should get funding, and confine the battle only to those things in controversy.


So then you support a clean CR then.
 
2013-10-01 04:11:45 PM
Whoops. I said then twice. I like then.
 
2013-10-01 04:12:34 PM
Before this gets too deep into "hey! neat idea to trim fat from the budget"?

Try to remember that a continuing resolution is to cover what is considered "agreed to" items for a "temporary" period of time - the GOP seems to be aiming at a mere 6 weeks.

The time to turn the budget inside out, item by item, is during the budget year

If they really want to break this into portions, then they can give up every 4 day weekend, month long holiday and 8 week session break for the duration - with no staff to help them read the hard parts,
 
2013-10-01 04:12:55 PM
 
2013-10-01 04:13:28 PM

sdd2000: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


The Obamacare, the already, and the funded part most likely.


Why is skinnyhead refusing to negotiate with me in good faith for the 2 years of total fark that he owes me in one month bits.


----

So let me get this straight. The GOP is willing to find the government, but only if they do it as slowly as possible, one item at a time.
 
2013-10-01 04:13:30 PM
I misread that as "God's new plan" and yet it didn't affect my comprehension
 
2013-10-01 04:14:18 PM

Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.


Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'
 
2013-10-01 04:14:28 PM

DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.


The individual bills have nothing to do with Obamacare.  There are two goals:

1. Attempt to fund really popular things like the DC parks/monuments so you don't keep seeing pictures of said parks and monuments with giant closed signs in front of them.

2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.

This isn't an attempt to solve the current situation.  It's just a a PR move.  It's also a really bad one since the Senate can simply do the same thing in return....like going through the cuts in the sequester and voting to remove them and then having the House shoot them down.  But then again you're talking about a GOP leadership group that probably has to be reminded to take off their pants before they take a dump.
 
ecl
2013-10-01 04:14:57 PM

ModernPrimitive01: OhioUGrad: the repeated use of the word piecemeal in this thread has made me hungry for chicken

I heard under Obamacare we will no longer be allowed to eat fried chicken. Only broccoli


I heard under Obamacare we will only be allowed three sheets of TP to wipe with.  Thanks Obama.
 
2013-10-01 04:15:06 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: Rann Xerox: That poor, poor chicken.

I think it's more like chicken pate by now.
[simplevegetarianrecipe.com image 288x234]



It's more like a pile of bloody feathers in the middle of a mixed-martial arts cage wearing an MMA glove, covered in GOP jizz and tapping out faster than Savion Glover hooked up to a Die-Hard car battery.
 
2013-10-01 04:15:25 PM

TheOtherGuy: At what point is it appropriate and necessary to define both the GOP and Tea Party as terrorist organizations, lock everybody up until and unless they promise to both act like freakin' adults and do their sworn duty as elected officials?  I mean, they've now done demonstrable harm to the United States, in terms of dollars, in terms of human cost.  What, exactly makes them not enemies of the state at this point?  They're organized, and seeking to affect the functioning of the state in an adversarial way by sowing chaos.

They're not objecting and trying to change or even overthrow a corrupt, incompetent, or tyrannical government.   They're trying to TAKE OVER and install their own corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical government.

Before you all rip into me, I'd rather not do this.  Really.  Everyone, elected or otherwise, has the right to disagree with the government and seek redress of grievances.  This is so not that.  It is abuse of political power to affect discord and destruction.  If it's not a crime, it bloody well ought to be.

I'm not an idiot.  I know this won't affect the majority of citizens in any significant way, at least not in the short term - which is probably the point they want to prove.  It's the precedent that bothers me.  Next time the blackmail may kill something more significant to the nation than park rangers' jobs.  Never mind the fact that it matters to you if you're a ranger...


Actually, no. They were elected by the people, and were given authority by the constitution to control the purse. So, to paraphrase Obama's own words, the people have spoken.
 
2013-10-01 04:16:32 PM

acchief: Actually, no. They were elected by the people, and were given authority by the constitution to control the purse. So, to paraphrase Obama's own words, the people have spoken.


Actually only 70 congressmen are holding the Congress hostage. That's nowhere near a majority of any people.
 
2013-10-01 04:16:54 PM

DamnYankees: This is exactly right, but again, it makes no sense. This isn't a "trick". The Democrats are willing to fund all of this. If they are going to do it piecemeal, just do it all at once. What's the point otherwise? There's nothing the Dems want funded in the CR that the Reps don't.


Because this way they get either:

A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.

B: The Democrats refuse to govern like children and don't go along with this idiotic plan, which the GOP will use to frame the Democrats as the cause and continuation of the shutdown.
 
2013-10-01 04:17:03 PM

ConcernTroll: Harry Reid's shutdown


img.fark.net
 
2013-10-01 04:17:34 PM

Deneb81: Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.

The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.


Heh, beat me to it.
 
2013-10-01 04:18:01 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: David Stockton, formerly of the Fed, estimates a shutdown costs 0.15 percent of GDP growth a week.- Annie Lowrey (@AnnieLowrey) October 1, 2013

I'm sure this will help with the dreaded economic uncertainty Republicans seem to be so concerned about.


Wow, that's alot. Scary almost even.
(0.15% => a factor of 0.0015 in growth)

Yeah, really scary.
 
2013-10-01 04:18:23 PM

Shrugging Atlas: 2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.


I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me the Senate would pass these bills - they want this stuff funded also. They passed the Pay the Military Act, right? Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?
 
2013-10-01 04:18:48 PM

Kuroshin: Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'


"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-Benjamin HUSSEIN Franklin
 
2013-10-01 04:18:58 PM
acchief -  ok - your assertion "they were elected by the people...to control the purse"

                they aren't doing that - the shut down will cost 2-9 BILLION and a program-by-program approval approach will take long enough to put people out on the streets

               Did you vote for 800,000 unemployed and more debt?
 
2013-10-01 04:19:18 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


Better yet, insert the Presidents 2013 budget in toto as a rider, and increase the top tax bracket to 89%.
 
2013-10-01 04:19:32 PM

Target Builder: A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.


But how is this good for them. The GOP needs the shutdown to be painful! That's the whole plan! Shut the government down which forces the Dems to defund Obamacare. If the shutdown isn't painful, they lose leverage over the Dems.
 
2013-10-01 04:19:38 PM

Heliovdrake: SKINNYHEAD,


You will buy me 2 years of total fark, but I want them in individual 1 month bits.


YOU HAVE UNTIL 6PM TODAY TO COMPLY!

//Its so sad that SkinnyHead is the best troll Ive seen in weeks.


You know he's a democrat false-flagger, right?
 
2013-10-01 04:20:45 PM
If passing a CR piecemeal gets them off the hook with their extreme constituents, I don't see a problem with it. Let them do it, then they can herp out some derps about how "we didn't fund Obamacare". Your average teaparty member is not going to know the difference, and that's that. Besides, they still have the hostage for the upcoming debt limit even if they just broke down and passed a clean CR, what's the difference.
 
2013-10-01 04:20:58 PM

acchief: Wow, that's alot. Scary almost even.
(0.15% => a factor of 0.0015 in growth)

Yeah, really scary.


Stupid, not scary. Unnecessary, self-inflicted, and stupid.
 
2013-10-01 04:21:20 PM

elchip: Kuroshin: Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-Benjamin HUSSEIN Franklin


COMMIE LIBTARD MUSLIN ATHEIST!!!!
 
2013-10-01 04:21:28 PM

Kuroshin: Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.

Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'


Oh really? I must have missed that talking point. Damnit!

With all due respect to Mr. Gilligan the best drama you're exporting right now is that show on CSpan.
 
2013-10-01 04:21:28 PM

DamnYankees: Shrugging Atlas: 2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me the Senate would pass these bills - they want this stuff funded also. They passed the Pay the Military Act, right? Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?


The GoP seems to think it puts the Democrats in a tight spot. In the interview I heard the Senator was talking about how Reid doesn't want to fund the parks but he can't dare vote against it.

I must be missing something, unless the CRs aren't clean I am pretty sure the Dems will be happy to pass them.
 
2013-10-01 04:21:38 PM
Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


Wow. This is hitherto unknown levels of dumb.
 
2013-10-01 04:22:40 PM

DamnYankees: Target Builder: A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.

But how is this good for them. The GOP needs the shutdown to be painful! That's the whole plan! Shut the government down which forces the Dems to defund Obamacare. If the shutdown isn't painful, they lose leverage over the Dems.


I still can't wrap my head around that one...
 
2013-10-01 04:23:06 PM

Deneb81: The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.


It's 27%

The same 27% that said in a poll today that shutting down the government is "a good idea"
 
2013-10-01 04:23:37 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


I read the headline and had to think about reasons why that wouldn't work... didn't realize this is the reason until I started reading the thread. How obviously retarded.
 
2013-10-01 04:23:46 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: I think it's more like chicken pate by now.


Could that be...warm chicken pate?

/Ted Cruz will be in his bunk.
 
2013-10-01 04:23:58 PM

Kuroshin: I still can't wrap my head around that one...


I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario. They're plan is to hope the Dems blink first. Now, I don't think it will work, but at least it makes sense in theory if you buy into the GOP's assumptions. The "splitting up the CR into multiple votes" just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
2013-10-01 04:24:08 PM

Vanis: Kuroshin: Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.

Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'

Oh really? I must have missed that talking point. Damnit!

With all due respect to Mr. Gilligan the best drama you're exporting right now is that show on CSpan.


It was back during the budget debate (around the same time OWS started up).

In the GOP, apparently every man is an island.
 
2013-10-01 04:24:51 PM

DamnYankees: Shrugging Atlas: 2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me the Senate would pass these bills - they want this stuff funded also. They passed the Pay the Military Act, right? Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?


Reid hasn't said anything either way since this entire thing isn't official (that I'm aware of), but the military thing is a complete no-brainer.  Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

Agreeing to ensure National Security isn't impacted is vastly different from agreeing to Republican efforts to fund the DC Memorials so they can have the horrible optics of tourists being turned away off the evening news.
 
2013-10-01 04:25:06 PM
DeaH:
Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


On the other hand? Not funding some stuff (say, HeadStart or WIC?) will merely "prove" these programs are a waste of money - after all? it didn't really impact you, did it?  The talking point writes itself.
 
2013-10-01 04:26:06 PM

KarmicDisaster: If passing a CR piecemeal gets them off the hook with their extreme constituents, I don't see a problem with it. Let them do it, then they can herp out some derps about how "we didn't fund Obamacare". Your average teaparty member is not going to know the difference, and that's that. Besides, they still have the hostage for the upcoming debt limit even if they just broke down and passed a clean CR, what's the difference.


If you think they will put out CR's to cover the entire budget, you're delusional. It will cover ideologically conservative favorites only.
 
2013-10-01 04:26:43 PM

Kuroshin: DamnYankees: Target Builder: A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.

But how is this good for them. The GOP needs the shutdown to be painful! That's the whole plan! Shut the government down which forces the Dems to defund Obamacare. If the shutdown isn't painful, they lose leverage over the Dems.

I still can't wrap my head around that one...


They (a small fraction of the GoP) believed that the Dems would flinch first if there was a government shutdown and agree to pass the CRs with the addition of delaying the individual mandate for one year. They also believed, against every indicator to the contrary, that they could spin the shutdown as being the Left's fault.

They were wrong on many levels.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:14 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.


May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:20 PM

DamnYankees: Kuroshin: I still can't wrap my head around that one...

I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario. They're plan is to hope the Dems blink first. Now, I don't think it will work, but at least it makes sense in theory if you buy into the GOP's assumptions. The "splitting up the CR into multiple votes" just doesn't make any sense at all.


But one of these things doesn't lead to the other, by any logical path at least.  I mean, if the assets of the ACA weren't already guaranteed funding, then I could see the logic because shutting down the .gov would actually directly affect the ACA.

But this?  This just doesn't compute.  Especially now, like you said, with their new strategy of passing bits and pieces through.  Unless every piece contains language to de-fund the ACA...

But that is just doing the same thing as before, in an even less-efficient manner.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:21 PM

SkinnyHead: Deneb81: And when each comes back with a portion of funding for the missing Obamacare funds, Boehner should push that!

It's compromise!

We've got a reasonable proposal for ending Harry Reid's shutdown on the table, but it looks like some of you just don't want it to end.  The National Parks shouldn't be the battleground for Obamacare.  We should fund those things that we agree should get funding, and confine the battle only to those things in controversy.


The house has a perfectly reasonable CR from the senate on their table. The time to debate Obamacare is not at every government funding bill, and not 4 years as two elections after it was passed. It may have passed some time during the 42 repeal attempts that the republicans failed to gain support for their agenda.

In alternate - let's also not fund the background checks for gun ownership. The parks should not be the battleground for gun ownership fights.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:28 PM

parasol: acchief -  ok - your assertion "they were elected by the people...to control the purse"

                they aren't doing that - the shut down will cost 2-9 BILLION and a program-by-program approval approach will take long enough to put people out on the streets

               Did you vote for 800,000 unemployed and more debt?


Wait a minute, 800,000 government workers lose their jobs, and government costs go UP? Oh wait, you're using that fuzzy math stuff aren't you? These economists making these statements now are those people who said house prices always go up, and the economy is sound back a few years ago?

Program-by-program is the way it's supposed to be done, and has been done throughout most of our history.
 
2013-10-01 04:28:02 PM

sdd2000: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.  The House can send piecemeal bills to the Senate one by one.  Military pay?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  No, he already allowed that one.  How about National Parks?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  Let's find out.  We can go through the entire budget that way, funding as much as we can.
 
2013-10-01 04:29:47 PM

Kuroshin: But one of these things doesn't lead to the other, by any logical path at least.  I mean, if the assets of the ACA weren't already guaranteed funding, then I could see the logic because shutting down the .gov would actually directly affect the ACA.

But this?  This just doesn't compute.  Especially now, like you said, with their new strategy of passing bits and pieces through.  Unless every piece contains language to de-fund the ACA...

But that is just doing the same thing as before, in an even less-efficient manner.


No it makes sense. They want the Democrats to actively pass a bill to defund the ACA - they know that shutting down the government doesn't defund it, they just thought that if they shut down the government, Dems would find that so intolerable they would be willing to actively defund the ACA in order to stop it.

Now, you and I agree that's dumb as hell, but at least it's a valid argument. it's not a sound argument, because its premises are false, but its valid. The splitting of the CR argument isn't even valid.
 
2013-10-01 04:30:16 PM
Skinnyhead has yet to reply.


Its clear he is unwilling to negotiate for my 2 years of totalfark.

Why wont he negotiate?

Is he too busy hunting endangered animals (which he doesnt even eat or stuff, he just lets them rot)

Is he too busy stalking, capturing and skinning the homeless?
 
2013-10-01 04:30:56 PM

DamnYankees: I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario. They're plan is to hope the Dems blink first. Now, I don't think it will work, but at least it makes sense in theory if you buy into the GOP's assumptions. The "splitting up the CR into multiple votes" just doesn't make any sense at all.


It makes sense when you look at it through PR terms.  The GOP is trying (horribly) to appear reasonable.  It's the same reason they kept sending the shiatty bills back to the Senate all weekend only to have them bounced almost the minute they got there.   "Oh, look how hard we tried to get a deal done.  We sent 3 different bills to them.  We even sent one on Saturday night and Reid didn't call the Senate in until Monday."

Those bills were doomed and everyone knew it.  But it was about positioning.  It's the same thing with these mini-funding bills.  Dems oppose them (which I'm betting the GOP hopes they do) and it's "Why do the Dems refuse to negotiate and hate America!"  Dems agree to them and the GOP hopes it slows down the mountains of negative PR they are getting.
 
2013-10-01 04:31:52 PM
If it is done one bill at a time, then the minority Tea Party gets to determine what gets funded and what does not get funded.

In that case, a small minority faction would run the government.

There is no guarantee, even if possible, that they would defund only the ACA.  And even if they did, this is just the original proposal dressed differently.
 
2013-10-01 04:32:18 PM

acchief: Dusk-You-n-Me: David Stockton, formerly of the Fed, estimates a shutdown costs 0.15 percent of GDP growth a week.- Annie Lowrey (@AnnieLowrey) October 1, 2013

I'm sure this will help with the dreaded economic uncertainty Republicans seem to be so concerned about.

Wow, that's alot. Scary almost even.
(0.15% => a factor of 0.0015 in growth)

Yeah, really scary.


I'm guessing you went to the coconut school of economics.
 
2013-10-01 04:32:22 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a goodtheoretically inefficient but workable idea. Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown. They've already done it once for military pay. Senate agreed to that. Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


It's a terrible way of doing things, but it may lead to some really interesting "vote checks" to put pressure on individual congressmen about what they will and will not vote to fund.

"Fund the Military"? Unanimous .
"Make sure Social Security Checks go out?" Unanimous.
"Federal Highway fund"? Unanimous.
"Fund the EPA?" ummm... errr...
"Fund the Education Department?" heh.. well, see....
 
2013-10-01 04:32:50 PM
RC: What we're seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power. It's not so much about Boehner. It's things like the end of earmarks. They move away from Tom DeLay and they think they're improving the House, but now they have nothing to offer their members. The outside groups don't always move votes directly but they create an atmosphere of fear among the members. And so many of these members now live in the conservative world of talk radio and tea party conventions and Fox News invitations. And so the conservative strategy of the moment, no matter how unrealistic it might be, catches fire. The members begin to believe they can achieve things in divided government that most objective observers would believe is impossible. Leaders are dealing with these expectations that wouldn't exist in a normal environment.

Why Boehner doesn't just ditch the right
 
2013-10-01 04:33:19 PM

SkinnyHead: sdd2000: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.  The House can send piecemeal bills to the Senate one by one.  Military pay?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  No, he already allowed that one.  How about National Parks?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  Let's find out.  We can go through the entire budget that way, funding as much as we can.


Oh, I get it! Skinnyhead doesn't realize that Obamacare isn't funded this way.

Learn something Skinny:

Story: Where Does the Money Come From? Besides the Individual Mandate penalty/tax, there are numerous NEW or INCREASED taxes and fees to fund all that is required by this law.

+.9% Increase in Medicare Tax Rate (plus next item...)

3.8% New Tax on unearned income for high-income taxpayers= $210.2 billion ($200,000 for individual and $250,000 for joint filers)

New Annual Fee on health insurance providers = $60 billion (For calculation - Sec 9010 (b) of the PPACA.)[1]

40% New Tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, per year = $32 billion (inland tax as opposed to an importation tax)

New Annual Fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs = $27 billion (For calculation - Sec 9008 (b) of the PPACA)[2]

2.3% New Tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices = $20 billion

+2.5% Increase (7.5% to 10%) in the Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction = $15.2 billion

Limit annual contributions to $2,500 on flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans (plans that allow employees to choose between different types of benefits) = $13 billion

All other revenue sources = $14.9 billion

10% New Tax imposed on each individual for whom "indoor tanning services" are performed.

3.8% New Tax on investment income. Includes: gross income from interest, dividends, royalties, rents, and net capital gains. Investment income does not include interest on tax-exempt bonds, veterans' benefits, excluded gain from the sale of a principle residence, distributions from retirement plans, or amounts subject to self-employment taxes. (The lesser of net investment income or the excess of modified Adjusted Gross Income over a the dollar amount at which the highest income tax bracket, typically $250,000 for married filing jointly and $200,000 filing as an individual).
 
2013-10-01 04:33:27 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.


I totally agree it's not fair at all.  But funding the military is far more sexy than funding some faceless (though useful) federal employee at HUD.

Sucks, but that's the reality.
 
2013-10-01 04:33:34 PM

BojanglesPaladin: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a goodtheoretically inefficient but workable idea. Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown. They've already done it once for military pay. Senate agreed to that. Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

It's a terrible way of doing things, but it may lead to some really interesting "vote checks" to put pressure on individual congressmen about what they will and will not vote to fund.

"Fund the Military"? Unanimous .
"Make sure Social Security Checks go out?" Unanimous.
"Federal Highway fund"? Unanimous.
"Fund the EPA?" ummm... errr...
"Fund the Education Department?" heh.. well, see....


That's exactly what makes it so appealing.
 
2013-10-01 04:34:10 PM
Any bill coming from the House needs to have WIC and food assistance funding attached to it and sent back to the House for another vote.
 
2013-10-01 04:34:42 PM

SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.


Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?
 
2013-10-01 04:35:02 PM

DamnYankees: No it makes sense. They want the Democrats to actively pass a bill to defund the ACA - they know that shutting down the government doesn't defund it, they just thought that if they shut down the government, Dems would find that so intolerable they would be willing to actively defund the ACA in order to stop it.

Now, you and I agree that's dumb as hell, but at least it's a valid argument. it's not a sound argument, because its premises are false, but its valid. The splitting of the CR argument isn't even valid.


But did they, really?  Did they honestly expect the Dems to flinch?  That's the thing I can't get to parse.  I've been going with the belief that they actually don't want fedgov to operate at all.  That the shutdown *was* the goal they were trying to achieve, and the ACA was just a convenient cyanide pill.
 
2013-10-01 04:35:19 PM

Shrugging Atlas: DamnYankees: I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario. They're plan is to hope the Dems blink first. Now, I don't think it will work, but at least it makes sense in theory if you buy into the GOP's assumptions. The "splitting up the CR into multiple votes" just doesn't make any sense at all.

It makes sense when you look at it through PR terms.  The GOP is trying (horribly) to appear reasonable.  It's the same reason they kept sending the shiatty bills back to the Senate all weekend only to have them bounced almost the minute they got there.   "Oh, look how hard we tried to get a deal done.  We sent 3 different bills to them.  We even sent one on Saturday night and Reid didn't call the Senate in until Monday."

Those bills were doomed and everyone knew it.  But it was about positioning.  It's the same thing with these mini-funding bills.  Dems oppose them (which I'm betting the GOP hopes they do) and it's "Why do the Dems refuse to negotiate and hate America!"  Dems agree to them and the GOP hopes it slows down the mountains of negative PR they are getting.


So you think they are proposing this "split it up" thing hoping that the Democrats reject it? And that's the only reason?
 
2013-10-01 04:36:00 PM

amiable: Ever feel like John Boehner is trapped in his own personal purgatory where is is forced to try to sell gradually more insane Tea Party strategies all the while screaming "It's not going to work you dumb Farkers!!!!"   Do you think one day he is just going to snap?  I mean how much more degrading does this need to get for him?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-01 04:36:10 PM

jst3p: 3.8% New Tax on investment income


Just a note, you included this twice. You must really like 3.8% taxes on unearned income.
 
2013-10-01 04:36:14 PM

Kuroshin: But did they, really?  Did they honestly expect the Dems to flinch?


Enough of them, yes. Seriously, read some of the quotes coming from the TP Caucus - these people live in an alternate universe.
 
2013-10-01 04:36:34 PM

SkinnyHead: sdd2000: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.  The House can send piecemeal bills to the Senate one by one.  Military pay?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  No, he already allowed that one.  How about National Parks?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  Let's find out.  We can go through the entire budget that way, funding as much as we can.


Simply not passing a funding bill will not make the ACA go away.  It's already been passed, it's law, it's already been funded, it doesn't need further legislation to take effect.  The GOP would need to pass new legislation to get rid of the ACA, and they don't have the votes to do so at this time, and don't figure to have enough for the foreseeable future.

What you're suggesting is simply a non-reality.
 
2013-10-01 04:36:36 PM

Ring of Fire: So basically they are trying to open up the portions of the government that they like and leave closed the ones they don't like in exchange for obamacare being repealed. Then they wanna call that compromise.
They want to do less than a full CR which is what the Dems. want and they expect to get everything they want out of the deal.
They are trying to dismantle the US government by shutting it all down and only opening back up the stuff they want.
That takes some gall.



Especially crazy is that they're doing this as the minority.
They've lost on this repeatedly through the democratic process so they're going with extortion tactics, and it's amazing just how many people they've duped into a both sides are bad whitewash of this whole thing.

/sad
 
2013-10-01 04:36:58 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: RC: What we're seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power. It's not so much about Boehner. It's things like the end of earmarks. They move away from Tom DeLay and they think they're improving the House, but now they have nothing to offer their members. The outside groups don't always move votes directly but they create an atmosphere of fear among the members. And so many of these members now live in the conservative world of talk radio and tea party conventions and Fox News invitations. And so the conservative strategy of the moment, no matter how unrealistic it might be, catches fire. The members begin to believe they can achieve things in divided government that most objective observers would believe is impossible. Leaders are dealing with these expectations that wouldn't exist in a normal environment.

Why Boehner doesn't just ditch the right


There's only one way this ends: welcome, Speaker Gohmert.
 
2013-10-01 04:37:09 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Deneb81: The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.

It's 27%

The same 27% that said in a poll today that shutting down the government is "a good idea"



I've always found that number suspiciously close to the percentage of people who never gave a correct answer in the Solomon Asch conformity experiments.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to think so but I've never seen it referenced...never looked either.
 
2013-10-01 04:37:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?


Not that I am defending this stupid practice going on in the Capitol today, but if they are funded, then that's it for the whole year, right? The CR would only last until December 31, from what I can gather. The funding bills would carry the departments through until the end of FY14, which is 9/30/2014.

Or am I mistaken? It's entirely possible.
 
2013-10-01 04:37:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?


I like it better if they're all exposed to a public vote one by one, so that people will see how much ridiculous shiat our government is up to, and who supports it and who doesn't.
 
2013-10-01 04:38:18 PM

acchief: That's exactly what makes it so appealing.


Personally, I think all budget resolutions should be clean, department by department bills.

But DURING a shut-down is not the time to be doing it.
 
2013-10-01 04:39:20 PM
National parks are socialism. I mean, taxpayer dollars being used for everyone equally? Ha!  I doubt that they can agree on funding them. In fact, I doubt that they can agree to fund anything if they do it piece by piece. It will take forever.
 
2013-10-01 04:40:59 PM

Funding level in the Senate passed CR: $986 billion

Funding level in President Bush's last budget: $988 billion (& this was for 2009)

- Michael Linden (@MichaelSLinden) October 1, 2013



Reminder that the 'clean CR' that's been lobbed back and forth between chambers includes sequestration spending cuts. A clean CR, by itself, would be a win for Republicans. Yet here we are.
 
2013-10-01 04:41:21 PM

DeaH: Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


Wow. This is hitherto unknown levels of dumb.


These people believe that conservatism can not fail, it can only be failed.   If you just stick to your "conservative principles", everything turns out okay in the end.    George Bush wasn't an abysmal failure because his tax cuts didn't work or that his manufactured wars were clusterfarks or that his deregulation lead to the financial metldown.  He failed because he might have made a 2% compromise one time over his 8 years that tainted everything.

Fighting Obama can never fail, it can only fail because you didn't fight hard enough.

\We're not talking about logical people, we're talking about dogmatic fanaticals and zealots.
 
2013-10-01 04:41:41 PM

KarmicDisaster: National parks are socialism. I mean, taxpayer dollars being used for everyone equally? Ha!  I doubt that they can agree on funding them. In fact, I doubt that they can agree to fund anything if they do it piece by piece. It will take forever.


I'm actually surprised Sen. Lee (R-UT) supports the parks bill because the vast majority of his state is owned by the feds and he went to Washington with intentions to wrestle that land back for the people of Utah.
 
2013-10-01 04:42:08 PM

acchief: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?

I like it better if they're all exposed to a public vote one by one, so that people will see how much ridiculous shiat our government is up to, and who supports it and who doesn't.


I think you're mistaken as to how much of our federal government is "ridiculous sh*t"
 
2013-10-01 04:42:10 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Dusk-You-n-Me: Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.

I totally agree it's not fair at all.  But funding the military is far more sexy than funding some faceless (though useful) federal employee at HUD.

Sucks, but that's the reality.


Also, we SHOULD be prioritizing paying the military over paying bureaucrats. It's a dick move not to be paying people, but if a choice has to be made, we damn sure ought to be prioritizing the people who have agreed to risk their lives for us.
 
2013-10-01 04:42:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: acchief: That's exactly what makes it so appealing.

Personally, I think all budget resolutions should be clean, department by department bills.

But DURING a shut-down is not the time to be doing it.


Some one get a calendar BojanglesPaladin actually wrote something that has some level of sense in it.
 
2013-10-01 04:42:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: acchief: That's exactly what makes it so appealing.

Personally, I think all budget resolutions should be clean, department by department bills.

But DURING a shut-down is not the time to be doing it.


Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.
 
2013-10-01 04:43:01 PM

Infernalist: Any bill coming from the House needs to have WIC and food assistance funding attached to it and sent back to the House for another vote.


Add all funding to it, including ACA aand throw in abolition of the fictitious 'debt ceiling', then send it back to the dipnuts.
 
2013-10-01 04:45:24 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Shrugging Atlas: Dusk-You-n-Me: Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.

I totally agree it's not fair at all.  But funding the military is far more sexy than funding some faceless (though useful) federal employee at HUD.

Sucks, but that's the reality.

Also, we SHOULD be prioritizing paying the military over paying bureaucrats. It's a dick move not to be paying people, but if a choice has to be made, we damn sure ought to be prioritizing the people who have agreed to risk their lives for us.


What's to say that this federal bureaucrat isn't more important than a guy doing ammo inventory in Nebraska? The federal bureaucrat may be a meat inspector.
 
2013-10-01 04:45:37 PM

acchief: Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.


Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the manufactured crisis as "the only way to get things done". It's bullshiat when Obama does it, it's bullshiat when the teabaggers do it.

This could have been avoided and addressed well ahead of time, but nowadays no one can be bothered to water the lawn unless a wildfire is approaching.
 
2013-10-01 04:46:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Shrugging Atlas: Dusk-You-n-Me: Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.

I totally agree it's not fair at all.  But funding the military is far more sexy than funding some faceless (though useful) federal employee at HUD.

Sucks, but that's the reality.

Also, we SHOULD be prioritizing paying the military over paying bureaucrats. It's a dick move not to be paying people, but if a choice has to be made, we damn sure ought to be prioritizing the people who have agreed to risk their lives for us.


Not sure what they actually funded, but it takes a vast chain of private companies to keep the ammo and supplies and services and contractors and benefits flowing. They are going to have to pay more than just military salaries.
 
2013-10-01 04:46:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: acchief: Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.

Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the manufactured crisis as "the only way to get things done". It's bullshiat when Obama does it, it's bullshiat when the teabaggers do it.

This could have been avoided and addressed well ahead of time, but nowadays no one can be bothered to water the lawn unless a wildfire is approaching.


OK, who took over BP's account?
 
2013-10-01 04:46:30 PM

DamnYankees: So you think they are proposing this "split it up" thing hoping that the Democrats reject it? And that's the only reason?


If you look at the potential subjects of these bills I think the GOP believes it can't go wrong either way.  Keep in mind most of the items that would be funded are the same things Obama and other Dems have been hitting the GOP over the head with all day long:

1. Dems reject them.  Then it's,"Why do Dems hate the VA, or tourists, or whatever?!"  It also is probably an attempt to make the Dems look 'unreasonable' by sticking to their demand of a clean CR.  It's an effort to move the goalposts.

2. Dems pass them.  Then whatever item that is now funded is removed from the Dem talking points, and it also changes the tone of the conversation and the GOP (hopes) gets cast in a more reasonable light.

Keep in mind, I think most people paying attention will see right through this.  I also thing it's a horrible idea on the part of the GOP.   But right now the GOP is left with almost nothing but horrible ideas.  The Dems have been strangely united in opposition to anything but passage of a clean CR, and if that ends up happening (with most House Dems and a few Republicans voting for it) Boehner is hosed.
 
2013-10-01 04:47:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: acchief: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?

I like it better if they're all exposed to a public vote one by one, so that people will see how much ridiculous shiat our government is up to, and who supports it and who doesn't.

I think you're mistaken as to how much of our federal government is "ridiculous sh*t"


Paying farmers not to farm?
NSA playing omniscient God?
TSA tickling your kiddies?
Building bridges to NoWhere?
Buying military equipment nobody wants or will even use?
Subsidizing Big Oil?
Subsidizing Big Pharma?
Bailing out Big Banks?

Which of those will your congressmen vote for? Wouldn't you like to know?
 
2013-10-01 04:47:21 PM

BojanglesPaladin: acchief: Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.

Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the manufactured crisis as "the only way to get things done". It's bullshiat when Obama does it, it's bullshiat when the teabaggers do it.

This could have been avoided and addressed well ahead of time, but nowadays no one can be bothered to water the lawn unless a wildfire is approaching.


It could be done NOW.

If Boehner brings a clean CR bill to the floor it will pass.

He doesn't want to because the baggers will have his balls and what's an alcoholic failure to do when his cushy job is on the line.
 
2013-10-01 04:48:47 PM

acchief: BojanglesPaladin: acchief: That's exactly what makes it so appealing.

Personally, I think all budget resolutions should be clean, department by department bills.

But DURING a shut-down is not the time to be doing it.

Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.


that's like setting your house on fire so you'll be forced to paint it faster
time is money in a shutdown, why in the world would we need to cause a problem so we can fix another problem?
 
2013-10-01 04:48:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It's bullshiat when Obama does it,


Which was...when?
 
2013-10-01 04:49:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?


Because we tried that, and we can't bring both sides together that way.  We need to find a way to fund as much of the government as we can.  The piecemeal approach breaks things down in a way that forces both sides to fund as much of the government as possible.  You say that Obamacare is already funded, so what the heck?  We should give it a try.
 
2013-10-01 04:49:54 PM

Infernalist: Any bill coming from the House needs to have WIC and food assistance funding attached to it and sent back to the House for another vote.


And: applying Income Tax rates to ALL income, regardless of capital gains or whatever.
Remove the Social Security Cap on contributions.
Reduce the Inheritance Tax deduction to $500,000
Remove the Debt Ceiling vote  in perpetuity in adherence to the 14th Amendment
Remove all federal funding to any project in all the Blue states
Stop funding for planes and tanks the military doesn't even want.
 
2013-10-01 04:50:03 PM

SkinnyHead: Because we tried that, and we can't bring both sides together that way


Why not? Which side is unwilling to fund the government? Seems to me that's the goal of both sides, is it not?
 
2013-10-01 04:51:00 PM

Shrugging Atlas: DamnYankees: So you think they are proposing this "split it up" thing hoping that the Democrats reject it? And that's the only reason?

If you look at the potential subjects of these bills I think the GOP believes it can't go wrong either way.  Keep in mind most of the items that would be funded are the same things Obama and other Dems have been hitting the GOP over the head with all day long:

1. Dems reject them.  Then it's,"Why do Dems hate the VA, or tourists, or whatever?!"  It also is probably an attempt to make the Dems look 'unreasonable' by sticking to their demand of a clean CR.  It's an effort to move the goalposts.

2. Dems pass them.  Then whatever item that is now funded is removed from the Dem talking points, and it also changes the tone of the conversation and the GOP (hopes) gets cast in a more reasonable light.

Keep in mind, I think most people paying attention will see right through this.  I also thing it's a horrible idea on the part of the GOP.   But right now the GOP is left with almost nothing but horrible ideas.  The Dems have been strangely united in opposition to anything but passage of a clean CR, and if that ends up happening (with most House Dems and a few Republicans voting for it) Boehner is hosed.


I only wish the Dems had been half as forceful as this when they controlled Congress during Bush's term. What a Bunch of Milquetoaste pantywaists. But alas, at least somebody's got some balls.
 
2013-10-01 04:51:23 PM

Shrugging Atlas: DamnYankees: So you think they are proposing this "split it up" thing hoping that the Democrats reject it? And that's the only reason?


Here's an good example of what I'm talking about when I say it's a horrible idea on the part of the GOP:

""People shouldn't have to choose between help for our veterans and cancer research," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y."
 
2013-10-01 04:51:30 PM

acchief: cameroncrazy1984: acchief: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?

I like it better if they're all exposed to a public vote one by one, so that people will see how much ridiculous shiat our government is up to, and who supports it and who doesn't.

I think you're mistaken as to how much of our federal government is "ridiculous sh*t"

Paying farmers not to farm?
NSA playing omniscient God?
TSA tickling your kiddies?
Building bridges to NoWhere?
Buying military equipment nobody wants or will even use?
Subsidizing Big Oil?
Subsidizing Big Pharma?
Bailing out Big Banks?

Which of those will your congressmen vote for? Wouldn't you like to know?


MY Representative will vote FOR all of those, but my Representative  is a booger-eating moron
 
2013-10-01 04:51:50 PM

unexplained bacon: acchief: BojanglesPaladin: acchief: That's exactly what makes it so appealing.

Personally, I think all budget resolutions should be clean, department by department bills.

But DURING a shut-down is not the time to be doing it.

Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.

that's like setting your house on fire so you'll be forced to paint it faster
time is money in a shutdown, why in the world would we need to cause a problem so we can fix another problem?


This is government at its finest. Duh.
 
2013-10-01 04:52:06 PM

jst3p: OK, who took over BP's account?

sdd2000: Some one get a calendar BojanglesPaladin actually wrote something that has some level of sense in it.


Interesting how your perception of me changes depending on whether I seem to be on your "side" or not.

My opinions and positions haven't changed. This and previous debacles are a direct result of both Parties deciding that it is better to be right than to serve the interests of the country. And they are this way, because their constituencies demand it of them with blind binary politico thinking.

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong. And they are ALL doing it wrong.
 
2013-10-01 04:52:28 PM

acchief: I only wish the Dems had been half as forceful as this when they controlled Congress during Bush's term. What a Bunch of Milquetoaste pantywaists. But alas, at least somebody's got some balls.


The side that has balls sadly lacks brains.
 
2013-10-01 04:52:36 PM
cameroncrazy1984:

http://psychcentral.com/lib/are-you-an-enabler/00015255

/lib
 
2013-10-01 04:53:50 PM
Kuroshin: ... I've been going with the belief that they actually don't want fedgov to operate at all.  That the shutdown *was* the goal they were trying to achieve, and the ACA was just a convenient cyanide pill.

DINGDINGDING! We have a winner!
 
2013-10-01 04:54:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: This and previous debacles are a direct result of both Parties deciding that it is better to be right than to serve the interests of the country


Ahh, there's the old BP. Both sides are bad.
 
2013-10-01 04:57:01 PM

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: OK, who took over BP's account?
sdd2000: Some one get a calendar BojanglesPaladin actually wrote something that has some level of sense in it.

Interesting how your perception of me changes depending on whether I seem to be on your "side"   spewing blatantly partisan easily debunked bullshiat

 or not
 
2013-10-01 04:59:24 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?

Not that I am defending this stupid practice going on in the Capitol today, but if they are funded, then that's it for the whole year, right? The CR would only last until December 31, from what I can gather. The funding bills would carry the departments through until the end of FY14, which is 9/30/2014.

Or am I mistaken? It's entirely possible.


One of the problems with funding something by program is that it encourages votes among party lines. When you bundle what you like with what you dislike - you usually end up voting for the bill. If you're allowed to separate it - you're no longer forced to compromise.
 
2013-10-01 04:59:33 PM
You know what, GOP?

Eat a bag of raw, unprocessed cocks; pass the damn CR, and GTFBTW, assholes.
 
2013-10-01 05:00:21 PM
That would be a fine plan if they started doing it around May.

Now that we're already shut down, just make with the CR already.
 
2013-10-01 05:01:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?


I was thinking they should do them piecemeal in many different parts, let's say one piecemeal spending bill for each House sub- committee covering they section of the government they oversee.  Then as each sub-committee sends its bill to the floor, they could be packaged together for the final vote. Kind of like when many people are making the same trip, they would take a bus instead of all going alone.  So, you put these bills on the bus, and you might need, I dunno, thirteen different buses to fit all the bills, and then send those thirteen buses to the House floor for a vote.  But if you're really pressed for time, you might even make a bus for all the buses, so instead of thirteen separate buses, you have one bus that holds all of the bills in each of the buses; a sort of Omni-bus, if you will. But the nice thing about this plan is that all of the Congressional sub-committees get to have their say on the budget that they've been assigned responsibility for by virtue of their committee assignment.

I'm still working out the kinks in this, but I think it could work. What do you think, Skinnyhead? Do you think Republicans should try this route?

/bus
 
2013-10-01 05:01:57 PM

DamnYankees: I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario


Actually, it's a more complicated hostage scenario.

It's as if the Semiconscious Liberation Army had taken an entire auditorium full of people hostage... but some of those people they actually like, and some of them a minority of extremists in the SLA want killed by any means necessary. So, they're trying to negotiate with the cops to let some of the more SLA-popular hostages go. (Which arguably parallels the Iranian crisis, where 13 women and ethnic minorities that the Iranians considered US-oppressed were released early on, while most of the original 66 had to wait.)

The hazard is that as the remaining hostages average less and less popular, the more and more likely it is that the extremists will be willing to blow up the building to kill the hostages most loathed, and consider any other casualties to be acceptable losses.
 
2013-10-01 05:03:15 PM
So they don't even understand the desired functionality of their own shut down. The entire idea was to pin blame on the president so he would have to deal with the fallout and come to the table. Funding things that people like goes against that goal.

What the fark is the end game?
 
2013-10-01 05:04:26 PM

parasol: DeaH:
Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


On the other hand? Not funding some stuff (say, HeadStart or WIC?) will merely "prove" these programs are a waste of money - after all? it didn't really impact you, did it?  The talking point writes itself.


But, you see, this sort of thing is exactly why negotiations are created. The House puts out a bill to fund soldiers. The Senate sends it back with an attachment for SNAP pointing out that many of our armed forces' families rely on Supplemental Nutritional Assistance. Now the Republicans are in a position of paying our soldiers, but not letting them feed their families.

Seriously, this is so dumb that it's a wonder these guys can walk erect.
 
2013-10-01 05:04:33 PM

acchief: TheOtherGuy: At what point is it appropriate and necessary to define both the GOP and Tea Party as terrorist organizations, lock everybody up until and unless they promise to both act like freakin' adults and do their sworn duty as elected officials?  I mean, they've now done demonstrable harm to the United States, in terms of dollars, in terms of human cost.  What, exactly makes them not enemies of the state at this point?  They're organized, and seeking to affect the functioning of the state in an adversarial way by sowing chaos.

They're not objecting and trying to change or even overthrow a corrupt, incompetent, or tyrannical government.   They're trying to TAKE OVER and install their own corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical government.

Before you all rip into me, I'd rather not do this.  Really.  Everyone, elected or otherwise, has the right to disagree with the government and seek redress of grievances.  This is so not that.  It is abuse of political power to affect discord and destruction.  If it's not a crime, it bloody well ought to be.

I'm not an idiot.  I know this won't affect the majority of citizens in any significant way, at least not in the short term - which is probably the point they want to prove.  It's the precedent that bothers me.  Next time the blackmail may kill something more significant to the nation than park rangers' jobs.  Never mind the fact that it matters to you if you're a ranger...

Actually, no. They were elected by the people, and were given authority by the constitution to control the purse. So, to paraphrase Obama's own words, the people have spoken.


Sure, if self-deception makes you feel better.  They could hide behind your justification successfully  if the debt ceiling were something they admittedly felt and could demonstrate was a dangerous thing to raise.  As in, "We don't think you should raise it, so we won't approve it, period."  Instead, they say "Oh, sure, it's fine to raise it, but only if we get to hold your  legally passed legislation hostage.  No, that's not government, that's not responsible "purse strings" management as you say.  That's extortion, and we're the ones being extorted, not the Dems.
 
2013-10-01 05:06:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So they don't even understand the desired functionality of their own shut down. The entire idea was to pin blame on the president so he would have to deal with the fallout and come to the table. Funding things that people like goes against that goal.

What the fark is the end game?


the underpants gnomes haven't told them yet.
 
2013-10-01 05:06:17 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-01 05:08:00 PM

DamnYankees: Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?


Here's your answer:

'Republicans are now trying to cherry-pick a few parts of the government to keep open. We won't pick and choose. We must re-open all of govt.'From Reid's twitter feed.
 
2013-10-01 05:08:07 PM

HotWingConspiracy: What the fark is the end game?


I don't think they have a clue how this ends.
 
2013-10-01 05:08:24 PM

jst3p: spewing blatantly partisan easily debunked bullshiat or not


Sigh. You know I have you tagged as "Usually well reasoned", but lately, you have been putting that to the test.


Especially with nonsense like this. You know as well as anyone here that I don't, in fact, engage in advocating for partisan positions. Quite the opposite.

The problem is that you are, unfortunately, a partisan and cannot really conceptualize anything outside of that binary worldview. So when I am critical of Obama, it triggers your partisan attack mode, because I am "other". But when I am critical of the teabaggers, it doesn't register, because I am not "other". When I am supportive of Wendy Davis, nothing. When I am critical of The Hair (Perry), nothing. But when I am critical of Feinstein's irrational assault weapons ban, your partisan attack mode is engaged.

Again, my positions don't change, it's just that the question "Does taking this position put me in or out of alignment with a political party" just never enters into it.

What changes is your response to my posts invariable, and boorishly predictably determined by whether you interpret whatever I happen to post is "for" or "against" your "team".

And you can be better than that. If you choose to.
 
2013-10-01 05:09:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Because we tried that, and we can't bring both sides together that way

Why not? Which side is unwilling to fund the government? Seems to me that's the goal of both sides, is it not?


The House does not want to fund Obamacare.  They're willing to fund everything but Obamacare.  They've made that clear.  You say that Obamacare is already funded.  That provides an opportunity for a work around.  Funding non-controversial portions of the budget piecemeal means that the government gets funded in all aspects, except for those portions that fund Obamacare.   There is no reason for Harry Reid to shut down the entire government over this.
 
2013-10-01 05:09:59 PM

Shrugging Atlas: DamnYankees: Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?

Here's your answer:

'Republicans are now trying to cherry-pick a few parts of the government to keep open. We won't pick and choose. We must re-open all of govt.'From Reid's twitter feed.


Gracias.
 
2013-10-01 05:10:17 PM
BP would like you all to know that he takes pride in being wrong regardless of who agrees with any particular position that he takes.
 
2013-10-01 05:10:42 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So they don't even understand the desired functionality of their own shut down. The entire idea was to pin blame on the president so he would have to deal with the fallout and come to the table. Funding things that people like goes against that goal.

What the fark is the end game?


No end game. This will go down in history as one of the biggest boners ever pulled by a government faction.

You could see it all over Bohner's face last night, when he could barely grind out a few pathetic talking points during his 1-minute post-shutdown "press conference": fear, anger, resentment, embarrassment, fear, defeat.
 
2013-10-01 05:12:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: What the fark is the end game?


They're going to end up getting the medical device tax repealed, and and about a 10 point drop on the generic ballot.  They could have easily gotten that yesterday.
 
2013-10-01 05:12:18 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So they don't even understand the desired functionality of their own shut down. The entire idea was to pin blame on the president so he would have to deal with the fallout and come to the table. Funding things that people like goes against that goal.

What the fark is the end game?


Penis-caught-in-zipper level self destruction?
 
2013-10-01 05:12:29 PM
SkinnyHead:   There is no reason for Harry Reid to shut down the entire government over this.

Sometimes you're amusing, but other times you're just a dick.
 
2013-10-01 05:12:45 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


I'm going to ask this again: was there a lot of lead in the paint where you grew up?
 
2013-10-01 05:13:36 PM

Skyrmion: Marcus Aurelius: SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are

They have FOX News carrying their water for them.

Yeah, see this isn't really a government "shutdown", it's more like a happy little "slimdown".

[retired.talkingpointsmemo.com image 742x600]


I had to go to the site before I believed that wasn't a photoshop. My god, the stupid, it burns.
 
2013-10-01 05:14:00 PM

BMFPitt: HotWingConspiracy: What the fark is the end game?

They're going to end up getting the medical device tax repealed, and and about a 10 point drop on the generic ballot.  They could have easily gotten that yesterday.


The Dems are not going to repeal that to get a CR passed. They've already said no to that.
 
2013-10-01 05:14:34 PM

SkinnyHead: The House does not want to fund Obamacare.  They're willing to fund everything but Obamacare.  They've made that clear.  You say that Obamacare is already funded.  That provides an opportunity for a work around.


How is this a workaround? A clean CR does the exact same thing you're describing.
 
2013-10-01 05:14:44 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Because we tried that, and we can't bring both sides together that way

Why not? Which side is unwilling to fund the government? Seems to me that's the goal of both sides, is it not?

The House does not want to fund Obamacare.  They're willing to fund everything but Obamacare.  They've made that clear.  You say that Obamacare is already funded.  That provides an opportunity for a work around.  Funding non-controversial portions of the budget piecemeal means that the government gets funded in all aspects, except for those portions that fund Obamacare.   There is no reason for Harry Reid to shut down the entire government over this.


That is completely untrue.  A few dozen republican extremists refuse to recognize the law of the land and do their jobs - not all of congress.  In fact, if Boehner brought a clean continuing resolution to the floor for a vote it would pass easily.

It's not democrats v. republicans.  It's Tea Party extremists v. everybody else.
 
2013-10-01 05:15:13 PM

Shrugging Atlas: 'Republicans are now trying to cherry-pick a few parts of the government to keep open. We won't pick and choose. We must re-open all of govt.'From Reid's twitter feed.


Glad to see Reid is as open to discussion as always. Unsurprising but still disappointing. Reid has plenty of blood on his hands in this.

I wish he would actually let some of the HR teabagger nonsense just get to an open vote on the Senate floor and be voted down instead of just killing everything in committee and stonewalling nearly everything that comes from the House. It's like he's terrified that some of it might actually pass, and won't take the risk. But it would be so much better if he let the legislative process work and make the republicans do the work of reconciliation to get the votes. All this "poison pill" amendments and procedural stonewalling (which he is admittedly very good at) is a major source of these things going unresolved until they hit the wall. These issues can and should be getting addressed before there is a crisis, but I think Reid prefers the showdowns.
 
2013-10-01 05:15:42 PM
I think everyone in this thread needs to go ahead and use the report function at the bottom of the page to report skinnyhead for trolling.


No,  really... or put him on ignore...
 
2013-10-01 05:17:14 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Glad to see Reid is as open to discussion as always. Unsurprising but still disappointing. Reid has plenty of blood on his hands in this.


How so? Because he won't give the GOP everything they want? Come on.
 
2013-10-01 05:17:21 PM
Just read this:

 Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills  to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes.

So this shiat won't even get out of the House.
 
2013-10-01 05:18:10 PM

Heliovdrake: I think everyone in this thread needs to go ahead and use the report function at the bottom of the page to report skinnyhead for trolling.
No,  really... or put him on ignore...


What do you think he is doing that is Trolling?
 
2013-10-01 05:18:29 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Because we tried that, and we can't bring both sides together that way

Why not? Which side is unwilling to fund the government? Seems to me that's the goal of both sides, is it not?

The House does not want to fund Obamacare.  They're willing to fund everything but Obamacare.  They've made that clear.  You say that Obamacare is already funded.  That provides an opportunity for a work around.  Funding non-controversial portions of the budget piecemeal means that the government gets funded in all aspects, except for those portions that fund Obamacare.   There is no reason for Harry Reid to shut down the entire government over this.


There's no reason to shutdown the government because you dislike funding certain things.

I dislike funding some of the DoD subcontractors but I'm not shutting down the government over it.

Are you implying that anytime a group of Congress critters are against funding something - they should be allowed to shutdown the government? That seems silly, no?
 
2013-10-01 05:18:30 PM

DamnYankees: Just read this:

 Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills  to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes.

So this shiat won't even get out of the House.


Haha really? Oh wow. Each GOP plan gets worse.
 
2013-10-01 05:18:40 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So they don't even understand the desired functionality of their own shut down. The entire idea was to pin blame on the president so he would have to deal with the fallout and come to the table. Funding things that people like goes against that goal.

What the fark is the end game?


1) Plant potato
2) Destroy Government
3) Free chickens and spuds for all!
 
2013-10-01 05:19:07 PM

Skyrmion: Yeah, see this isn't really a government "shutdown", it's more like a happy little "slimdown".


That is goddamn hilarious. Even Fox News knows the shutdown is on the GOP.

I'm unbelievably amused.
 
2013-10-01 05:19:16 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Heliovdrake: I think everyone in this thread needs to go ahead and use the report function at the bottom of the page to report skinnyhead for trolling.
No,  really... or put him on ignore...

What do you think he is doing that is Trolling?


Ironically? Refusing to compromise.
 
2013-10-01 05:19:30 PM

DamnYankees: Just read this:

 Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills  to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes.

So this shiat won't even get out of the House.


I've been trying desperately to find a GIF of a kid putting something on a table and having it violently slapped away.

That's all this is, a bunch of children who keep pulling stunts and having their toys knocked off the dinner table.
 
2013-10-01 05:19:42 PM

DamnYankees: The Dems are not going to repeal that to get a CR passed. They've already said no to that.


They said no to that plus delaying the individual mandate by a year.  They would do that by itself in a heartbeat.
 
2013-10-01 05:21:01 PM

BMFPitt: DamnYankees: The Dems are not going to repeal that to get a CR passed. They've already said no to that.

They said no to that plus delaying the individual mandate by a year.  They would do that by itself in a heartbeat.


Other than the fact that they announced they wouldn't do that, sure.
 
2013-10-01 05:21:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Shrugging Atlas: 'Republicans are now trying to cherry-pick a few parts of the government to keep open. We won't pick and choose. We must re-open all of govt.'From Reid's twitter feed.

Glad to see Reid is as open to discussion as always. Unsurprising but still disappointing. Reid has plenty of blood on his hands in this.

I wish he would actually let some of the HR teabagger nonsense just get to an open vote on the Senate floor and be voted down instead of just killing everything in committee and stonewalling nearly everything that comes from the House. It's like he's terrified that some of it might actually pass, and won't take the risk. But it would be so much better if he let the legislative process work and make the republicans do the work of reconciliation to get the votes. All this "poison pill" amendments and procedural stonewalling (which he is admittedly very good at) is a major source of these things going unresolved until they hit the wall. These issues can and should be getting addressed before there is a crisis, but I think Reid prefers the showdowns.


Each of the CR's with the poison TeaBagger pills has in fact been voted down in the full senate (via tabling), not in a committee. A budget bill was passed by the senate and the TeaBaggers in the senate (AKA Cruz and Lee especially) as well as the house GOP prevented a conference committee to be appointed to work out the differences.
 
2013-10-01 05:21:17 PM

DamnYankees: Just read this:
Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes. So this shiat won't even get out of the House.


That's actually interesting and a good point. Got a cite?
 
2013-10-01 05:22:08 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Heliovdrake: I think everyone in this thread needs to go ahead and use the report function at the bottom of the page to report skinnyhead for trolling.
No,  really... or put him on ignore...

What do you think he is doing that is Trolling?


No one who can type and use the internet is actually as dumb as Skinnyhead is pretending to be, he is being willfully obtuse, and ignoring simple logical lines of reasoning.

He has two possible defenses.

1. He really is this dumb.

2. He is trolling.

Sadly they are effectively the same in end result right now.
 
2013-10-01 05:22:19 PM

Infernalist: Any bill coming from the House needs to have WIC and food assistance funding attached to it and sent back to the House for another vote.


you sound hungry.
 
2013-10-01 05:22:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: Just read this:
Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes. So this shiat won't even get out of the House.

That's actually interesting and a good point. Got a cite?


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-house-gop- to -democrats-negotiate-97639.html
 
2013-10-01 05:23:31 PM
I don't know why anyone would think this will work. The Teahadists will probably attach the "defund Obamacare"  to each one and nothing will ever get passed.
 
2013-10-01 05:23:53 PM
House Republicans are trying to pressure Democrats on their side of the dome. The bills will come up undersuspension of the rules , which means they must garner two-thirds of the chamber for passage.
 
2013-10-01 05:24:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: BojanglesPaladin: Heliovdrake: I think everyone in this thread needs to go ahead and use the report function at the bottom of the page to report skinnyhead for trolling.
No,  really... or put him on ignore...

What do you think he is doing that is Trolling?

Ironically? Refusing to compromise.


He has continued to refuse to even acknowledge that he owes me 2 years of total fark.

He has not ONCE come to the table in good faith to give me the 2 years of total fark that I want from him.

Which I want paid for in 1 month increments, not all at once.

Why one he even consider negotiating for my 2 years of total fark?
 
2013-10-01 05:25:16 PM
Compromise: We'll fund all of the things we do like, but none of the things we don't like.
 
2013-10-01 05:25:32 PM

DamnYankees: Just read this:

 Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills  to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes.

So this shiat won't even get out of the House.


It's like they're climbing a mountain of fail. For fun. At the expense of our country.
 
2013-10-01 05:26:56 PM
I love the idea that the GOP is going to try to pry something like 60 votes away from the Dem caucus to vote for this pile of this. Have they not met Nancy Pelosi? She'll farking destroy you.
 
2013-10-01 05:27:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Heliovdrake: I think everyone in this thread needs to go ahead and use the report function at the bottom of the page to report skinnyhead for trolling.
No,  really... or put him on ignore...

What do you think he is doing that is Trolling?


Larding his comments with statements that have no purpose other than to aggravate his fellow Farkers is trolling.

Do I need to explain how you're being disingenuous?
 
2013-10-01 05:27:50 PM
Pelosi just urged House Dems to vote no on bits and pieces of the CR.  It's DOA, not that it ever stood a chance in the House.  Republicans just want to try to turn this back around so that they aren't the ones causing the shutdown when everyone knows they are.
 
2013-10-01 05:29:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: Just read this:

 Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills  to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes.

So this shiat won't even get out of the House.

Haha really? Oh wow. Each GOP plan gets worse.


At this point - I think that a secession bill would go unchallenged in the Senate.

The House could pass a CR with a single amendment announcing their request to separate.
 
2013-10-01 05:29:35 PM
Slimedown?
 
2013-10-01 05:29:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: Just read this:

 Republican leaders intend to bring their minibills  to the floor under a suspension of the rules. To pass, they need a two-thirds majority vote, and to reach that two-thirds, they'll need Democratic votes.

So this shiat won't even get out of the House.

Haha really? Oh wow. Each GOP plan gets worse.


Looks like it's on to plan Q, boys.
 
2013-10-01 05:29:39 PM

TuteTibiImperes: TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate House with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.

FTFM


and a provision that says if the government shuts down all of Congress and the president and VP forfeit their remaining pay for their current term in office effective imediately.
 
2013-10-01 05:30:23 PM

DamnYankees: I love the idea that the GOP is going to try to pry something like 60 votes away from the Dem caucus to vote for this pile of this. Have they not met Nancy Pelosi? She'll farking destroy you.


i.imgur.com

A dramatic reenactment of Nancy Pelosi's couple of days. Hopefully we're nearing the inevitable conclusion:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-01 05:30:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Shrugging Atlas: 'Republicans are now trying to cherry-pick a few parts of the government to keep open. We won't pick and choose. We must re-open all of govt.'From Reid's twitter feed.

Glad to see Reid is as open to discussion as always. Unsurprising but still disappointing. Reid has plenty of blood on his hands in this.


The discussion has happened. ACA passed the House, passed the Senate, was upheld by the Supreme Court. It's final test was that if the public really hated it Romney would have won and it would be being repealed right now. It is literally impossible for the american political system to more completely approve of a bill.

It's over. The hardliners are owed nothing.
 
2013-10-01 05:31:49 PM

Shrugging Atlas: DamnYankees: Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?

Here's your answer:

'Republicans are now trying to cherry-pick a few parts of the government to keep open. We won't pick and choose. We must re-open all of govt.'From Reid's twitter feed.


Yeah, about an hour. ago, Reid and Durbin were tag-teaming the "arrogant" junior senator from texas, e.g., `so, you want to help the disabled vets (who happen to be government employees) working in the VA, but you don't want to help out the disabled vets working in other agencies?'... etc.
 
2013-10-01 05:32:08 PM

Soup4Bonnie: House Republicans are trying to pressure Democrats on their side of the dome. The bills will come up undersuspension of the rules , which means they must garner two-thirds of the chamber for passage.


Ain't gonna happen.

The Senate is clearly going to shiatcan any of these bills that pass, so there's no point in breaking ranks when the only benefit to be gained is to try and avoid the inevitable and predictable "Congressman X voted against our Veterans" ads.  With all the damage the GOP is doing to themselves there's absolutely no reason for Democrats to change course because a hundred of those ads aren't going to be worth squat in comparison.
 
2013-10-01 05:32:50 PM
I'd like to hire a film crew to give us live coverage. Of everything.
 
2013-10-01 05:37:54 PM

sdd2000: Each of the CR's with the poison TeaBagger pills has in fact been voted down in the full senate (via tabling), not in a committee. A budget bill was passed by the senate and the TeaBaggers in the senate (AKA Cruz and Lee especially) as well as the house GOP prevented a conference committee to be appointed to work out the differences.


"Tabling" it is exactly the kind of procedural blocking I am talking about. It is Reid saying "My party can kill it dead, and kill it dead we will." No debate on the floor. They announced that they were rejecting it even before they did the roll call vote, and it was just a procedural formality.
 
2013-10-01 05:50:22 PM
Doesn't matter.. CNN says there is plenty of blame to go around.
 
2013-10-01 05:51:03 PM

BojanglesPaladin: sdd2000: Each of the CR's with the poison TeaBagger pills has in fact been voted down in the full senate (via tabling), not in a committee. A budget bill was passed by the senate and the TeaBaggers in the senate (AKA Cruz and Lee especially) as well as the house GOP prevented a conference committee to be appointed to work out the differences.

"Tabling" it is exactly the kind of procedural blocking I am talking about. It is Reid saying "My party can kill it dead, and kill it dead we will." No debate on the floor. They announced that they were rejecting it even before they did the roll call vote, and it was just a procedural formality.


A motion to table requires a vote (or unanimous consent, which was not the case here) and any senator can ask for a recorded roll call vote. In fact they did a roll call vote on that motion by a 54-46 vote.
 
2013-10-01 05:52:34 PM

BojanglesPaladin: acchief: That's exactly what makes it so appealing.

Personally, I think all budget resolutions should be clean, department by department bills.

But DURING a shut-down is not the time to be doing it.


Is this like how it's never the appropriate time to talk about gun control?
 
2013-10-01 05:54:07 PM
At the risk of putting logic into a Fark Politics thread...

This basically comes down to Boehner not being willing to stand up to the Tea Party caucus. If he put the Senate bill up for a vote, or a clean CR, then only 32 of the Republican Representatives would have to vote for it to pass. He won't do that, because he's sticking by the "Hastert Rule", which says that the speaker won't put a bill up for a vote unless the majority of the Majority is for it. This basically destroys moderate compromises if the radical end of the Majority is strong enough to carry just half the party. The thing about this is, it's not a law, it's a moral stand. As a matter of law and procedure, he can break it whenever he wants. If he did throw out the Hastert rule, he would deal with a primary challenger, and he would lose his Speakership at the next opportunity. On the other hand if he did what would be best for the economy, and he could get at least 50 to come with him, we might see some actual progress in the remainder of this Congress. And maybe the Tea Party organizations would be stretched to thin to primary all of them - and that might change things for the next Congress.

The President should not, in my opinion, deal with the GOP. They have shown several times during his administration that they cannot be expected to stand by a negotiated compromise or negotiate in good faith.
 
2013-10-01 05:56:19 PM
Dumbass Republicans. For all this trouble, you'd think they fighting for the right of a small minority to deny health insurance for those who can't afford it or have pre-existing conditions.
 
2013-10-01 06:00:39 PM

AirForceVet: Dumbass Republicans. For all this trouble, you'd think they fighting for the right of a small minority to deny health insurance for those who can't afford it or have pre-existing conditions.


You forgot, they are really fighting the Blah Man from having a victory
 
2013-10-01 06:01:46 PM
m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4025437?1380662812

For those of you hoping to get back pay because you've been furloughed ...
 
2013-10-01 06:04:22 PM
Do it! Repeal the individual mandate and sit back and watch the insurance companies implode because their business model now sucks balls.

Make that your compromise, Mr. President.

Then bring on Medicare For All.
 
2013-10-01 06:05:17 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: HotWingConspiracy: What the fark is the end game?

I don't think they have a clue how this ends.


Dexter's writers are clearly pulling the gig for the TP caucus.
 
2013-10-01 06:08:45 PM

hackalope: At the risk of putting logic into a Fark Politics thread...

This basically comes down to Boehner not being willing to stand up to the Tea Party caucus. If he put the Senate bill up for a vote, or a clean CR, then only 32 of the Republican Representatives would have to vote for it to pass. He won't do that, because he's sticking by the "Hastert Rule", which says that the speaker won't put a bill up for a vote unless the majority of the Majority is for it. This basically destroys moderate compromises if the radical end of the Majority is strong enough to carry just half the party. The thing about this is, it's not a law, it's a moral stand. As a matter of law and procedure, he can break it whenever he wants. If he did throw out the Hastert rule, he would deal with a primary challenger, and he would lose his Speakership at the next opportunity. On the other hand if he did what would be best for the economy, and he could get at least 50 to come with him, we might see some actual progress in the remainder of this Congress. And maybe the Tea Party organizations would be stretched to thin to primary all of them - and that might change things for the next Congress.

The President should not, in my opinion, deal with the GOP. They have shown several times during his administration that they cannot be expected to stand by a negotiated compromise or negotiate in good faith.


Which is kind of poetic, since Boehner was one of the coup members who attempted to knock Gingrich out back in the nineties.

He's going cling to his throne of king fark of shiat island while the country burns because his ego was bruised decades ago.
 
2013-10-01 06:09:04 PM

serial_crusher: Is this like how it's never the appropriate time to talk about gun control?


Not really no, since they are radically different issues.

Though in the sense that rushed legislation passed in crisis mode is almost invariably bad, I suppose so.
 
2013-10-01 06:11:40 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Do it! Repeal the individual mandate and sit back and watch the insurance companies implode because their business model now sucks balls.

Make that your compromise, Mr. President.

Then bring on Medicare For All.


The Senate could just create a bill for Medicare for all. They're not really doing much right now anyway.

They should start carving out their Christmas list.
 
2013-10-01 06:12:01 PM

sdd2000: A motion to table requires a vote (or unanimous consent, which was not the case here) and any senator can ask for a recorded roll call vote. In fact they did a roll call vote on that motion by a 54-46 vote.


Yes. And it is not the same thing as passing a bill by vote. It is a resolution to decide whether to hear the bill, which As Reid has demonstrated any number of times before, is a procedural way to prevent any HR legislation he does not pre-approve from ever being passed because he has the 51 votes to keep it from getting to that point.

Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.
 
2013-10-01 06:14:38 PM

BojanglesPaladin: sdd2000: A motion to table requires a vote (or unanimous consent, which was not the case here) and any senator can ask for a recorded roll call vote. In fact they did a roll call vote on that motion by a 54-46 vote.

Yes. And it is not the same thing as passing a bill by vote. It is a resolution to decide whether to hear the bill, which As Reid has demonstrated any number of times before, is a procedural way to prevent any HR legislation he does not pre-approve from ever being passed because he has the 51 votes to keep it from getting to that point.

Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.


LOL
 
2013-10-01 06:16:27 PM
Right, this is all Reid's doing. Sure.

Yes, both sides are bad, just like it's bad to stub your toe, and bad to get killed by a cement truck.
 
2013-10-01 06:17:01 PM

BojanglesPaladin: sdd2000: A motion to table requires a vote (or unanimous consent, which was not the case here) and any senator can ask for a recorded roll call vote. In fact they did a roll call vote on that motion by a 54-46 vote.

Yes. And it is not the same thing as passing a bill by vote. It is a resolution to decide whether to hear the bill, which As Reid has demonstrated any number of times before, is a procedural way to prevent any HR legislation he does not pre-approve from ever being passed because he has the 51 votes to keep it from getting to that point.

Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.


Key difference

Reid is not willing to debate a topic that has already passed the House, the Senate, been upheld by the Supreme Court and bears the name of the guy we just reelected to the presidency in a landslide. There is literally no way a bill can have passed more tests than this one has: Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches.

By contrast Boehner refuses to table a clean CR bill that would pass that would simply preserve the status quo. Instead he wants the Senate to agree to remove funding for a bill that has already passed even though there's only a minority in the House who want to do that because that minority will likely fire him if he does.

If you can't see how these aren't equivalent then I'm afraid you deserve your reputation
 
2013-10-01 06:17:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.


Really?  How so?  I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists here in the USA.
 
2013-10-01 06:25:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.


I was confused, it isn't that you are a partisan hack. It is just that you regularly say things like this that are just plain incorrect.
 
2013-10-01 06:27:09 PM

jst3p: BojanglesPaladin: Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.

I was confused, it isn't that you are a partisan hack. It is just that you regularly say things like this that are just plain incorrect.


Call it what they are,

Lies.
 
2013-10-01 06:30:54 PM

Evil High Priest: Right, this is all Reid's doing. Sure.


Not hardly. The teabaggers are definitely a huge part of the problem.

Tigger: Key difference...Reid is not willing to debate a topic that has already passed....


I am not speaking of Reid's actions only in this specific instance. I disagree with the teabaggers. But I also think it is worth noting that they aren't the only ones acting in bad faith by leveraging procedural technicalities, and when Reid has effectively nixed any and all bills out of the HR he doesn't like for years, it should not surprise anyone that the teabaggers so desperately jump on ways to get what they want by going around the normal processes.

Dwight_Yeast: I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists here in the USA.


I don't think either Reid or Obama or the Teabaggers are "terrorists" and people who use that kind of rhetoric are just letting everyone know what binary partisan simpletons they really are.
 
2013-10-01 06:30:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: acchief: I only wish the Dems had been half as forceful as this when they controlled Congress during Bush's term. What a Bunch of Milquetoaste pantywaists. But alas, at least somebody's got some balls.

The side that has balls sadly lacks brains.


It's not courage if you are doing it no goal in mind, no plan in hand, and at 90mph.
 
2013-10-01 06:38:09 PM

jst3p: I was confused, it isn't that you are a partisan hack. It is just that you regularly say things like this that are just plain incorrect.


This is not incorrect, this is just outside your conceptual framework to accept, because it requires that you accept that someone of "your team" may not be acting in the best interests of the country either.

We can pointlessly argue over who is "more bad", (the teabaggers) but there should not be a dispute over the simple fact that Harry Reid is and has been able to quash pretty much anything he wants in the Democratic Senate?

Do you NOT know that Reid has effectively put a moratorium on all legislation he doesn't like? Have you missed this in the last 8 or more years? Refresh my memory, how many HR bills that he opposed have gone to the floor for an up or down vote? And how many have been quashed procedurally?

Even if you think he SHOULD be doing it, anyone who is following things can see that he is doing it. It's why we K-N-O-W that the four hundred and eighty seven defund Obamacare bills the House passes will ever even see the light of day in the Senate. Reid has the Senate locked down.
 
2013-10-01 06:40:39 PM

Heliovdrake: Call it what they are, Lies.


I think I recognize your style. Whose alt are you?
 
2013-10-01 06:52:37 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.


It is now considered obstructionist to not give the teabaggers (70 members of the House) everything they want.

Give me a freaking break.
 
2013-10-01 07:21:08 PM

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: I was confused, it isn't that you are a partisan hack. It is just that you regularly say things like this that are just plain incorrect.

Do you NOT know that Reid has effectively put a moratorium on all legislation he doesn't like? Have you missed this in the last 8 or more years? Refresh my memory, how many HR bills that he opposed have gone to the floor for an up or down vote? And how many have been quashed procedurally?


I don't care, at this point, if Reid was farking entombed in the bowels of Yucca Mountain (and I'd charge his family rent on that plot, in perpetuity).  Only procedure that would clear the decks is Boehner giving Hastert the boot and bringing a clean CR to the floor; apologists for slithering prevaricators and panderers need not bother beyond attempting to bolster the derp for the depredator's dummies.
 
2013-10-01 07:21:23 PM

heap: all it takes is a drudge link saying the national park system benefits abortions


As a private contractor in a national recreation area, I can attest to the veracity of this assertion. Difficulty; all of the abortions are post-natal so there is no disconnect with an anti-abortion stance; wide though it may be.
 
2013-10-01 07:25:43 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Do you NOT know that Reid has effectively put a moratorium on all legislation he doesn't like?


In other words, Democrats are voting down bills they don't want to pass. Shocking.
 
2013-10-01 07:28:36 PM

DamnYankees: In other words, Democrats are voting down bills they don't want to pass. Shocking.


Show me where in the Constitution it says that Democrats are allowed to vote no on bills.
 
2013-10-01 07:29:03 PM

DamnYankees: BojanglesPaladin: Do you NOT know that Reid has effectively put a moratorium on all legislation he doesn't like?

In other words, Democrats are voting down bills they don't want to pass. Shocking.


Which is in stark contrast to the House, that doesn't even bring a bill they know will pass up for a vote because there are not enough Republicans willing to vote for it.
 
2013-10-01 07:33:24 PM

sprawl15: DamnYankees: In other words, Democrats are voting down bills they don't want to pass. Shocking.

Show me where in the Constitution it says that Democrats are allowed to vote no on bills.


t.qkme.me
 
2013-10-01 07:36:28 PM

DamnYankees: In other words, Democrats are voting down bills they don't want to pass. Shocking.


Not really, no.

But I think you are missing the point. It's not that these poor teabaggers can't win a vote, (in many instances they would lose). It's that Reid consistently blocks them procedurally from ever coming up for an open floor up or down vote. He's killing them in private before they can die in public,

Frankly, I think he is subverting the free functioning of the representative democracy in favor of partisan gamesmanship. It is better to let this stuff go to the 100 senators and let them vote on it, good or bad. Only someone afraid of what the results might be would oppose that, and I think he's afraid that some of these bills might damage his parties reputation or appearance just by hitting the floor publicly. Maybe he's right, maybe not, but I favor open air sunlight politics.

The unfortunate result of this complete stoppage is that the "only recourse" for the Teabaggers is out of procedural stunts like this. I would prefer they have the fights by everyone voting BEFORE it gets to this.
 
2013-10-01 07:37:57 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: In other words, Democrats are voting down bills they don't want to pass. Shocking.

Not really, no.

But I think you are missing the point. It's not that these poor teabaggers can't win a vote, (in many instances they would lose). It's that Reid consistently blocks them procedurally from ever coming up for an open floor up or down vote. He's killing them in private before they can die in public,

Frankly, I think he is subverting the free functioning of the representative democracy in favor of partisan gamesmanship. It is better to let this stuff go to the 100 senators and let them vote on it, good or bad. Only someone afraid of what the results might be would oppose that, and I think he's afraid that some of these bills might damage his parties reputation or appearance just by hitting the floor publicly. Maybe he's right, maybe not, but I favor open air sunlight politics.

The unfortunate result of this complete stoppage is that the "only recourse" for the Teabaggers is out of procedural stunts like this. I would prefer they have the fights by everyone voting BEFORE it gets to this.


I think you are confusing Harry Reid with the Hastert Rule and Boehner in the House.
 
2013-10-01 07:38:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: He's killing them in private before they can die in public,


What are you talking about. Every single CR the House has passed has been voted on by the Senate. What's the substantive difference between a vote to table and a vote to pass? It's the same thing in terms of rejecting the bills. Both votes let the entire Senate vote whether or not they want the bill to become law.
 
2013-10-01 07:42:09 PM
...and the House has officially voted this tactic down. Dems needs 142 no votes, they are already at 158.
 
2013-10-01 07:45:34 PM
I thought there were 3 parts to the US federal government, the Presidency, the Senate, and the Congress, but apparently there is only one, their Congress, and they can simply choose what to fund without consulting the other 2. This kind of shakes up my view of the USA.
 
2013-10-01 07:50:37 PM

meat0918: I think you are confusing Harry Reid with the Hastert Rule and Boehner in the House.


I am not, but that is also bullshiat.

DamnYankees: What's the substantive difference between a vote to table and a vote to pass? It's the same thing in terms of rejecting the bills.


Floor debate among other things. A vote to table is a vote against taking it for general consideration. The problem is that any party with just ONE vote over 50 can effectively veto anything, and do it in a way that no one is on record for voting against the bill, just voting for a procedural question of whether to consider the bill. That's not democracy, that is a tyranny of the narrow majority. Reid didn't invent the tactic, but he has been excessively *ahem* liberal in his use of it as a means of quashing unwanted legislation.
 
2013-10-01 07:52:53 PM

DamnYankees: ...and the House has officially voted this tactic down. Dems needs 142 no votes, they are already at 158.


Seriously.

I'd like a functioning EPA, because our local regulating (actually they seem to just issue permits and rarely actually do any enforcement) is farking up bad.

We have a new wood waste electrical cogeneration facility that I was initially all for based on their proposed emission targets and local electric generation is a good thing.

They've been in operation for a while now, and have exceeded their permitted emissions levels multiple times, but only fine 3 times.

They applied to have the permit changed from "minor source" (which evades parts of the Clean Air Act apparently), and are going to be classified in with coal plants now and at least a little more heavily regulated, but despite the massive public outcry against the company breaking their promises, the local permitting agency is going to grant them the new permit.

/Done ranting, continue with the shutdown thread.
 
2013-10-01 07:53:18 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Floor debate among other things. A vote to table is a vote against taking it for general consideration. The problem is that any party with just ONE vote over 50 can effectively veto anything, and do it in a way that no one is on record for voting against the bill, just voting for a procedural question of whether to consider the bill. That's not democracy, that is a tyranny of the narrow majority. Reid didn't invent the tactic, but he has been excessively *ahem* liberal in his use of it as a means of quashing unwanted legislation.


So what you want Reid to do is put every bill up for a vote to pass, which would literally take, like, 5 days each time because cloture would need to be filed on the GOP filibuster. You think the process would be benefited by more speeches like Ted Cruz gave?

Again, how is this helpful? You do realize that the if the bill went to a full vote it would lose with the exact same vote count as the vote to table, right?

BojanglesPaladin: The problem is that any party with just ONE vote over 50 can effectively veto anything


Yes. That's how voting works. Would you prefer the Senate go by the rule that as long as the majority of the GOP Senators support something, the law passes?
 
2013-10-01 07:57:18 PM

DamnYankees: So what you want Reid to do is put every bill up for a vote to pass


That would be nice. Yes.

The rest of your strawmen are not indicative of anything I have suggested, and so I can't really speak to any of that.

Have a nice evening.
 
2013-10-01 07:58:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The rest of your strawmen are not indicative of anything I have suggested, and so I can't really speak to any of that.


You are correct. You clearly are not able to speak to anything I raised. I agree with you there.
 
2013-10-01 08:16:04 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: So what you want Reid to do is put every bill up for a vote to pass

That would be nice. Yes.

The rest of your strawmen are not indicative of anything I have suggested, and so I can't really speak to any of that.

Have a nice evening.


I SAID GOOD DAY!
 
2013-10-01 08:25:12 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Do it! Repeal the individual mandate and sit back and watch the insurance companies implode because their business model now sucks balls.

Make that your compromise, Mr. President.

Then bring on Medicare For All.


Wasn't the Individual Mandate the compromise for the Republicans in the first place?  And now they're wanting to strip it?

Wouldn't removing the Individual Mandate make Obamacare even MORE awesome, since it's all the benefits (for individuals) with none of the risk?  Am I missing something?
 
2013-10-01 08:26:37 PM

InmanRoshi: It took these bumbling retards 2 years to agree on a Farm Bill that 80% of them supported, and even then they could only get it through by breaking it up into seperate pieces.   Even on something that was a slam dunk no brainier like disaster relief after Sandy, they were at each other's throats and breaking out into civil wars.   You really think they could agree to dismantle and pass the entire federal budget item by item?    The entire premise ignores the basic underlying problem that a small, but ridiculously powerful, faction of the Republican caucus utterly hates the American government and specifically believes they were sent to Washington to sabotage it from the inside.


And predictably all three pieces of their broken up budgets fail to pass in their own chamber.
 
2013-10-01 08:27:02 PM

DamnYankees: Other than the fact that they announced they wouldn't do that, sure.


So that is supposed to mean anything?

It's not even a matter of not believing politicians, that's just basic negotiating.
 
2013-10-01 08:30:32 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: Right, this is all Reid's doing. Sure.

Not hardly. The teabaggers are definitely a huge part of the problem.

Tigger: Key difference...Reid is not willing to debate a topic that has already passed....

I am not speaking of Reid's actions only in this specific instance. I disagree with the teabaggers. But I also think it is worth noting that they aren't the only ones acting in bad faith by leveraging procedural technicalities, and when Reid has effectively nixed any and all bills out of the HR he doesn't like for years, it should not surprise anyone that the teabaggers so desperately jump on ways to get what they want by going around the normal processes.

Dwight_Yeast: I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists here in the USA.

I don't think either Reid or Obama or the Teabaggers are "terrorists" and people who use that kind of rhetoric are just letting everyone know what binary partisan simpletons they really are.


That's not "procedural technicality", that's the democratic process.

Reid is under no obligation to pick up a bill just because the house passed it; he gets a vote too, and that's why he was elected.
 
2013-10-01 08:30:33 PM

InmanRoshi: InmanRoshi: It took these bumbling retards 2 years to agree on a Farm Bill that 80% of them supported, and even then they could only get it through by breaking it up into seperate pieces.   Even on something that was a slam dunk no brainier like disaster relief after Sandy, they were at each other's throats and breaking out into civil wars.   You really think they could agree to dismantle and pass the entire federal budget item by item?    The entire premise ignores the basic underlying problem that a small, but ridiculously powerful, faction of the Republican caucus utterly hates the American government and specifically believes they were sent to Washington to sabotage it from the inside.

And predictably all three pieces of their broken up budgets fail to pass in their own chamber.


The clean CR the Senate sent back would pass right now, correct?

Boehner would lose his speakership, but it would pass.
 
2013-10-01 08:39:16 PM

meat0918: InmanRoshi: InmanRoshi: It took these bumbling retards 2 years to agree on a Farm Bill that 80% of them supported, and even then they could only get it through by breaking it up into seperate pieces.   Even on something that was a slam dunk no brainier like disaster relief after Sandy, they were at each other's throats and breaking out into civil wars.   You really think they could agree to dismantle and pass the entire federal budget item by item?    The entire premise ignores the basic underlying problem that a small, but ridiculously powerful, faction of the Republican caucus utterly hates the American government and specifically believes they were sent to Washington to sabotage it from the inside.

And predictably all three pieces of their broken up budgets fail to pass in their own chamber.

The clean CR the Senate sent back would pass right now, correct?

Boehner would lose his speakership, but it would pass.


Yes, it would pass.

However, I wouldn't get my hopes up that Boehner is going to do anything brave or sane.    Boehner is nothing but a puppet and a figurehead for the faction of Tea Party extremists on the right.   He does absolutely nothing without their say.
 
2013-10-01 09:04:31 PM

meat0918: The clean CR the Senate sent back would pass right now, correct?

Boehner would lose his speakership, but it would pass.


Peronsally I think he's going to lose it either way.

First, they are going to have to pass the clean CR at this point.  There's absolutely no cracks in the Democratic Party in the House or Senate or Obama.  In fact, I'd say they actually ratcheted up their language today.  The polling all indicates the public hated the idea of a shutdown even before it actually happened....so it's only going to get worse for them.  So, he's going to have to put it up for a vote, it will pass largely on the backs of Democrats, and at the point the Tea Baggers will be out for his scalp.

So, they pass it and what then?  We have the debt ceiling coming up in 16 days from today.  Can an already weakened House GOP survive ANOTHER manufactured crisis of their making?  Probably not, but the lunatics will try.  And Boehner at that point is farked.  He can either refuse to go along with them, further enraging his caucus by again 'siding' with Democrats, or he actually goes through with their hopes and either caves again without getting any concessions or goes down with the ship and creates an absolute farking economic disaster for which the GOP will be blamed, and he'll lose it then.

The guy is just farked at this point.  There's no playbook to work from since so much of this is unprecedented.  There's no close allies to rely upon because most of the House GOP leadership (Cantor especially) would kick him to the curb and even tried to do so when he was up for reelection last time around.  You have a freshman Senator born in Canada that is openly defying him and publicly manipulating the House GOP caucus.  The guy has always been weak, but he's certainly never appeared as weak as his does right now, and it's going downhill fast.
 
2013-10-01 09:17:26 PM
If they want piecemeal voting, then we should take to the most logical conclusion. Itemized voting for everything in every department.

All in favor of House Resolution 6,891,293 - "New Printer Toner for the Department of Agriculture's Forest And Fisheries Pennsylvania office, 2nd floor, Accounting Department's Network Printer Model Epson 4890G"
 
2013-10-01 09:21:22 PM

Shrugging Atlas: The guy is just farked at this point.  There's no playbook to work from since so much of this is unprecedented.  There's no close allies to rely upon


You're assuming that whatever unprecedented line was crossed can be crossed back again. The GOP won something here, like the ability to control all kinds of funding by signing off on it one item at a time. Like, do you think they will refund NASA without gigantic cuts? Do you think they will give NASA money for top up the days it goes unfunded?
 
2013-10-01 09:33:50 PM

elchip: BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: So what you want Reid to do is put every bill up for a vote to pass

That would be nice. Yes.

The rest of your strawmen are not indicative of anything I have suggested, and so I can't really speak to any of that.

Have a nice evening.

I SAID GOOD DAY!


Ok see you two later! Drive safe, especially if you've been drinking!
 
2013-10-01 09:45:24 PM

Bennie Crabtree: You're assuming that whatever unprecedented line was crossed can be crossed back again. The GOP won something here, like the ability to control all kinds of funding by signing off on it one item at a time. Like, do you think they will refund NASA without gigantic cuts? Do you think they will give NASA money for top up the days it goes unfunded?


How did they win the ability to do that?  Every single bill they put forward to line item fund specific items failed hard today...and there's never been anything in place to prevent such bills from being put forward in the past by either party.  The mere ability to put forward a bill is meaningless.  It's passage isn't even meaningful if it's destined to fail in the Senate or be vetoed.  Like the 40+ bills they passed to get rid of the ACA for example.
 
2013-10-01 09:51:11 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If they want piecemeal voting, then we should take to the most logical conclusion. Itemized voting for everything in every department.

All in favor of House Resolution 6,891,293 - "New Printer Toner for the Department of Agriculture's Forest And Fisheries Pennsylvania office, 2nd floor, Accounting Department's Network Printer Model Epson 4890G"


Let me quote that bill for you:

1. The 2nd floor of the Accounting Department of the Pennsylvania Office of the Division of Forest and Fisheries of the Department of Agriculture shall buy toner for their Printer Model Epson 4890G.
2. All abortion shall be permanently and irrevocably eliminated in the Unites States.

and they'll hope that everyone will be too worn out to notice. Which, by the way, is the only reason to pass piecemeal legislation that adds up to a clean CR.
 
2013-10-01 09:55:02 PM

Bennie Crabtree: I thought there were 3 parts to the US federal government, the Presidency Nina, the Senate Pinto, and the Congress Santa Monica, but apparently there is only one, their Congress, and they can simply choose what to fund without consulting the other 2. This kind of shakes up my view of the USA.


Actually, the three branches of the United States government are the executive branch (the president and his cabinet, along with various regulatory agencies), the legislative branch (AKA Congress, which in turn consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the judicial (the federal courts).
 
2013-10-01 10:00:17 PM

ivan: HotWingConspiracy: So they don't even understand the desired functionality of their own shut down. The entire idea was to pin blame on the president so he would have to deal with the fallout and come to the table. Funding things that people like goes against that goal.

What the fark is the end game?

No end game. This will go down in history as one of the biggest boners ever pulled by a government faction.

You could see it all over Bohner's face last night, when he could barely grind out a few pathetic talking points during his 1-minute post-shutdown "press conference": fear, anger, resentment, embarrassment, fear, defeat.


You said "fear" twice.
 
2013-10-01 10:03:21 PM

ImpendingCynic: and they'll hope that everyone will be too worn out to notice. Which, by the way, is the only reason to pass piecemeal legislation that adds up to a clean CR.


Who said they would pass an entire CR? If the goal is to allow departments to be funded one at a time, what's to stop Speaker Papaya from putting the Department of Defense's procurement and weapons appropriations on the floor first and never getting around to Housing and Urban Development's fair housing standards board? If the Democrats are stupid enough to go for that plan, they deserve to have everything except boom devices cut by 50% and budgets frozen from inflation adjustments for next century.
 
2013-10-01 11:00:22 PM

Heliovdrake: jst3p: BojanglesPaladin: Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.

I was confused, it isn't that you are a partisan hack. It is just that you regularly say things like this that are just plain incorrect.

Call it what they are,

Lies.


ALL THE TIME! They do it ALL THE TIME!!!

They are doing it RIGHT F*CKING NOW!

/thank you mediablitz
 
2013-10-01 11:05:37 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Boehner would lose his speakership, but it would pass.

Peronsally I think he's going to lose it either way.


There is no point in the Tea Party kicking out Boehner of his Speakership.    At the moment he's their willing puppet who will do anything they tell him to do because he just wants to be the Speaker more than anything.  He has absolutely no backbone or spine to do anything without their blessing.     Kicking him out and replacing him with another puppet really doesn't accomplish anything.     As far as spineless puppets go, Boehner has some tools in his toolbox for the Tea Party to use in that he can coerce the old school moderates to go along with the program against their misgivings and better judgement.  He has a lot of pull with them because they've been in the trenches a long time together.   It's a cache that your typical neo-confederate insurrectionist Tea Party guy elected in 2010 and 2012 doesn't have.
 
2013-10-01 11:51:10 PM

yukichigai: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Do it! Repeal the individual mandate and sit back and watch the insurance companies implode because their business model now sucks balls.

Make that your compromise, Mr. President.

Then bring on Medicare For All.

Wasn't the Individual Mandate the compromise for the Republicans in the first place?  And now they're wanting to strip it?

Wouldn't removing the Individual Mandate make Obamacare even MORE awesome, since it's all the benefits (for individuals) with none of the risk?  Am I missing something?


The individual mandate is what makes sure that people can't just get insurance only once they need it. Without it, you could start benefiting from insurance without having paid a dime into it. That is only awesome if you're not thinking about sustainability.
 
2013-10-02 01:17:39 AM

scanman61: SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are.


It's because the reporters covering this clusterfark are more concerned about keeping their access than they are about informing the public.

You can't fill a 24 hour news channel without lots of "interviews".


You know, here's a crazy plan.

1. Call out the lying liars when they lie
2. Get denied access to the lying liars
3. No one gets to hear the lying liars because no one has access

A little collusion among the major news networks would be all that it takes.

Come on, someone has to have as much stones as the little boy who who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.

/ trouble is news executives have about as much foresight as most Tea Party adherents
 
2013-10-02 01:36:55 AM

colon_pow: Infernalist: Any bill coming from the House needs to have WIC and food assistance funding attached to it and sent back to the House for another vote.

you sound hungry.


So are you indirectly claiming that you, personally require no food?
 
2013-10-02 02:18:27 AM

Kittypie070: colon_pow: Infernalist: Any bill coming from the House needs to have WIC and food assistance funding attached to it and sent back to the House for another vote.

you sound hungry.

So are you indirectly claiming that you, personally require no food?


Bootstraps and gravy - it's not just for breakfast anymore.
 
2013-10-02 03:21:01 AM

GhostFish: The individual mandate is what makes sure that people can't just get insurance only once they need it. Without it, you could start benefiting from insurance without having paid a dime into it. That is only awesome if you're not thinking about sustainability.


Ah yes, that would be unfortunate.

On the other hand, that would basically mean the death of all insurance companies if it operated that way, at least eventually.  Insurance companies can't keep up, are forced to go bankrupt, government has to step in, and we all get single payer like we should have had in the first place.

...well that's a best-case scenario.  Worst case, chaos and disaster.  And since the Republicans are at the helm, worst case is the only thing I'm betting on.
 
2013-10-02 09:22:48 AM

BojanglesPaladin: sdd2000: A motion to table requires a vote (or unanimous consent, which was not the case here) and any senator can ask for a recorded roll call vote. In fact they did a roll call vote on that motion by a 54-46 vote.

Yes. And it is not the same thing as passing a bill by vote. It is a resolution to decide whether to hear the bill, which As Reid has demonstrated any number of times before, is a procedural way to prevent any HR legislation he does not pre-approve from ever being passed because he has the 51 votes to keep it from getting to that point.

Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.


I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make any sense at all.

And if all you want is that a period of debate be allowed...how many hours was Ted Cruz talking for again?  How much good did that do anyone?
 
2013-10-02 12:30:37 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: And if all you want is that a period of debate be allowed...how many hours was Ted Cruz talking for again?


20 something hours, I believe. And that was not debate.

Weird that you would go to THAT as a response. What gives you the impression that I favor Cruz? Surely, even a cursory glance at my comments here in this thread make it clear that I am no fan of the teabaggers, and yet you seem to think that the alternative to Reid stonewalling and quashing everything is.. what? Giving the teabaggers free reign? Is your view so binary, that if I criticize one team, I must therefore be a member of the "other" team? Is your view of politics so limited?
 
2013-10-02 01:28:34 PM

kc278: ivan: HotWingConspiracy: So they don't even understand the desired functionality of their own shut down. The entire idea was to pin blame on the president so he would have to deal with the fallout and come to the table. Funding things that people like goes against that goal.

What the fark is the end game?

No end game. This will go down in history as one of the biggest boners ever pulled by a government faction.

You could see it all over Bohner's face last night, when he could barely grind out a few pathetic talking points during his 1-minute post-shutdown "press conference": fear, anger, resentment, embarrassment, fear, defeat.

You said "fear" twice.


Yes, I like Lee Ving.
 
2013-10-02 11:39:09 PM
Yes, so, a day later, how is that going? They can't pass anything, can they?
 
Displayed 381 of 381 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report