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

(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  
•       •       •

2374 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2013 at 3:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



381 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 381 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report