Are you against funding them piece by piece?
Printable View
Are you against funding them piece by piece?
I thought the piecemeal approach was a pretty clever idea. The administration uses their shutdown theater to try to highlight how terrible the shutdown is, the GOP offers to pass continuing resolution funding what they highlight, and Democrats vote it down. It shows how unserious they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Speaking of shutdown theater- they actually turned out park police and other staffers to try to keep WWII vets from visiting the WWII memorial on the national mall. Mind you, the reasoning was that it was closed because of the shutdown- but the memorial is open-air and normally open to the public 24/7 unstaffed. Yet, even with no funding, they found staff to erect barriers around the memorial... which the vets broke thru.
In even more blatant shutdown theater, the Air Force - Navy football game has been ordered cancelled... even though the event requires no government funding.
Personally, I've noticed no difference since the shutdown... which is pretty much what I've expected.
OK, but they obviously had a "right" to do it, as they haven't broken the law and are using their power enumerated under the Constitution. They just refuse to pass the budget in the way that the opposition demands. That is actually called hardball or leverage in order to extract concessions. Ever buy a car? Walk out and prepare to lose the car.
Piecemeal should be the only way budgets are ever passed. Look at your cable package. What is all of that crap and how did it get there? Am I paying for the Oprah channel, msnbc and LOGO? I barely watch CSPAN, the military channel and HGTV and all of the good stuff is on Netflix.
Either way, the democrats currently in power make me physically sick. I hope that they are eating a turd sandwich. The closure of open air parks across the US is hilarious in its absurdity. The Federal government is closed, but somehow they are building evern more irritating bureaucratic obstructions to the American people than they do while funded.
In all the images I have been seeing it is police who are erecting the barriers and I see no reason to doubt that it is the same here. Certainly they did at the Lincoln Memorial and I would suspect elsewhere. I strongly suspect that these things have to be closed off because maintenance staff aren't on hand for cleaning etc. What would have happened if someone, to take a wild example, had sprayed a swastika on the memorial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The event itself doesn't but... http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...523_story.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
At Air Force, the shutdown impacts members of the Falcons’ support staff, classified as civil service employees. They would be ineligible to travel during the shutdown. According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Air Force Athletic Director Hans Mueh, assistant football coach John Rudzinksi and the school’s sports information department were furloughed Tuesday.
You can try to blame the Democrats in any way you want for the theatre here Xiahou, but you have no leg to stand on. Your party created this mess and has to deal with everything that follows. The American people are already blaming you.
Who did you vote for in the last election GB? The one before that? You are good on guns I will give you that and seem pretty moderate, but did the GOP ever have you when they were moderate, establishment politicians?
Somehow there were enough park rangers to completely barricade the park, but not to make sure that people didn't graffiti the monument itself? LE was not effected by the shutdown. No national security either, unless the job was deemed nonessential. I'm surprised that pandacam didn't qualify, given the governments meaning of "essential services"Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
People like Barack Obama more than all Republicans combined. He is the magic man. Fortunately for us we don't have to run against him again. The verdict is in, we have lost the popularity contest for the remaining 3 years, might as well have fun playing the bad guy. Go back to pining about Abbott and deal with your own intractable conservative problem.
Even with this tantrum, it's unlikely that it will hurt the GOP badly enough this far away from the midterms. If we lose seats in the House, we could lose the House, but not by too much. We may still grow a few in the Senate. Even with a rebalance, the AWB wouldn't pass with the current membership, only the background checks extension which is fine by me. Maybe a 3 branch Democratic gpovernment could make some bad decisions during the lame duck which would boost Christie vs Hillary in 2016. Who gives a crap.
Do you have a job? What kind of disability?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I wasn't aware the Hastert Rule was in the Constitution. Absent that strange bit of self-gelding, there are plenty of votes for a "clean" funding bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Who decides what to vote on, Lemur? Does the majority party form quorums and does the House originate spending bills according to its own rules as in Article One, or are those rules decided by the other branches?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Speaking as someone who has worked in the private sector his entire life, and who has actually "created jobs" (I love how that gets bandied about like a magic talisman), and who has never taken a dime of government money (not even a mortgage deduction—which is, in fact, a payoff), this sort of empty rhetoric offends the hell out of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
And the fact that you're willing to spit it in the face of a vet says a whole lot about your character.
Much like the Tea Partiers you include in your first person plural, you cast yourself as a nihilist. Willingly. 'Nuff said.
I will only tell a wounded veteran that they are owed handouts because they earned them. They aren't even really handouts, but I have to tell you to find a job and do it. There is no excuse. At my last job, one of the finest workers was a mam whose back was crushed in high school. His motor and speech skills we impaired. He had the most dignity of anyone working in that place because in spite of the things which should have held him back he had achieved more than anyone else in the office. People were in awe of him. My own situation is plagued by mysterious illnesses which just appear every few years and devestate my quality of life. They never go away, but I have worked for 10 years full time and I am 30 now. I am constantly tempted to just go I've up, but I won't give democrats the satisfaction and I won't do that to my wife. As I've stated, you are a smart man who has more to offer than most. Get out there and don't be afraid to not be great at somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Spit in the face of a vet. Give me a break. I don't treat anybody with kid gloves, especially not veterans. He knows that he shouldn't lie in a hammock for too long, even if it is his too do with as he likes - for his own sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
We get it, you've broken the paradigm - a job creator who loves paying taxes to people and gets nothing in return, some of which are deserving veterans, others who would buy drugs and whores with the money. Thank you for thanking people for their service.
How much does the GI bill pay per annum?
Youth allowance would start at about 15,000 over three years in Aus to help people with cost of living.
That is a pretty crap hand to deal people.
That $15k is for an eighteen year old living at home with parents on a combined income of less then $150k. The kid can earn up to $10k before there rates are reduced.
I have only held private sector jobs
Can I spit on vets too?
No it's is $223 a fortnight or $15k/3yrs. Plus upto $10k a year of earnings which on minimum casual wages would be about 500 hrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
If you live away from home its is around $400/fortnight and if you are single with a child it might be $530/fortnight
The Shutdown is just another political game, and one the Republicans will lose, as usual.
The whole thing is disingenuous, of course.
Up until the one in the 1990s government offices or services had never been curtailed. The civil servants had just continued to work but their pay was often late in coming.
You see, whether civil service remains on the job or not is an executive decision. So, most properly any loss of services to the public is the fault of the POTUS.
Clinton took a page from what several state governors had done and shut down services for the first time, to make the Republicans look bad. He didn’t except continuing resolutions much like what is happening this time.
He was covered by the press, just like this time, only this one is even more dramatic than the last.
It is not going to end well for the Republicans and the best thing they can do is just give in. You might have thought they would have learned from the last time, but as usual they didn’t.
No one is going to blame the President for what they perceive as necessary under the circumstances.
And POTUS is... ?
A terrorist takes hostages, and in exchange for their release demands free passage out of the country on the grounds that both he and the state want him out of there: to actually "compromise" on these grounds would of course be a total abdication of responsibility, and for the executive making such a decision cause for impeachment.
But in reality no terrorist would ever make such demands, in part because it makes no sense to go to the trouble of carrying out the terrorism only to use it to plead, 'Hey let's just forget about all of this business'.
And in reality no terrorist would be so obscenely trollish to commit terrorism and then say something along the lines of, 'So we want to destroy your country and society, and you want to neutralize the threat my organization presents to your country and society; let's do the "reasonable" thing and settle on what we both want for now.'
"What's the difference between Tea Partiers and terrorists? You can actually negotiate with terrorists some of the time."
Obviously, piece-meal funding is a terrible idea both practically and politically.
President Of The United States. Americans love acronyms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
President works just fine. If that's too long, Obama is acceptable, too, and if five letter word is too long to type, please refrain from posting and go back to your crayons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
POTUS was popularised by the West Wing as an easily pronounced acronym.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Piecemeal funding of a full appropriations package is an upgrade to the constant spate of CR's that these idiots have been getting away with passing. To say that it is "obviously a bad idea" is a bit of a cop out. We all agree (or an easy majority agrees) that funding should not be withdrawn from a, b, and c, so why can we pass a longer term bill funding those things and then move onto the next things. We could get out of the CR crap cycle.
Fund what we all want on an LCD basis or just hold us hostage over a bloated CR bill that is full of crap neither of us want. Although the GOP started this, something had to give. I hope we have the votes to hold for a long, long time.
Oh, and terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violent terror as a means of coercion, you partisan shill lightweight commentators. Somehow, in trying to clip the governments ability to control individuals in ways that nobody desires, we are accused of McCarthyism. You are the ones running around crying terrorism because you don't like the way people are playing with your toys, (which the other people have a right to play with)
You mean the Democrats should allow the GOP to blackmail them and bow to their every whim for the good of the nation? That would show weakness and turn the Democrats into clowns who can easily be held hostage and extortet. No American would ever suggest such an approach if the GOP were not an American organization. In fact most GOP supporters would probably advocate the use of drone strikes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think the Democrats are correct in not bowing to this or else they lose all the power they currently still have.
Might suit you, but you won't fool anyone.
Not to forget that the things the GOP is willing to let through piece by piece probably all benefit the GOP and their constituents to a large part, so giving in to that would be really disadvantageous.
1. It legitimizes the tactic.Quote:
Piecemeal funding of a full appropriations package is an upgrade to the constant spate of CR's that these idiots have been getting away with passing. To say that it is "obviously a bad idea" is a bit of a cop out. We all agree (or an easy majority agrees) that funding should not be withdrawn from a, b, and c, so why can we pass a longer term bill funding those things and then move onto the next things. We could get out of the CR crap cycle.
2. It avoids the issue of actually having a conversation on what we want to have and what we want to pay for.
That you don't desire.Quote:
Somehow, in trying to clip the governments ability to control individuals in ways that nobody desires
"Our toys"? So, the legislative and judicial processes are "toys"?Quote:
, we are accused of McCarthyism. You are the ones running around crying terrorism because you don't like the way people are playing with your toys, (which the other people have a right to play with)
If you want the right to "play" with some "toys", try winning some elections. Otherwise, you're literally a bully and a thief.
This right here is what should be done to the Tea Party.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Try winning some elections. That's rich. Listen, the American people are scared of, but likely want Obamacare. Here is my narrative:
The American people re-elected Barack Obama because they are more scared of the existing health care system that his hopes to replace. This I get - for all of the things I don't like, there are many things I do like about the ACA. In the reticence of the American people, they handed the reigns of spending over to the GOP to ensure that the majority of Americans who already have health insurance were not fleeced by a Senate and President who are more interested in coverage for the uninsured and those interest groups to which they are beholden, than those who are already paying through the nose. The House originates all spending bills, why? Because their numbers are recognized to be closer to the body of the whole people and the people need to hold the purse strings. As much as the President was reelected re-enforces the legitimacy of the ACA, the fact that the GOP has enough of a majority in the House to shut the government down over the individual mandate re-enforces the fact that they were literally put there to control rampant spending and Federal dictat, particularly related to this new program.
People are acting as though budgets should simply be passed, even though he deliberative body doesn't believe in the budget. Why not just get rid of the House and let the Senate and President just pass whatever they want? Negotiation is what people who hate each other do when they have to live with one another in spite of disparate agendas, and they have already fought a bloody civil war.
The one lesson of secession is that it doesn't work. There is no breaking away, it is either kill or be killed. Do you think that the 13th through 15th amendments would have ever passed during the 19th century had the South stayed and fought in the House and Senate? No way. I'm glad they were passed, but it doesn't change the fact that they were passed when the South had either no representation within the Union or the reps that they had were reconstruction era puppets. You stay and fight for what you believe in, or change your position. Death or ruin awaits for those who flee.
I think that we are approaching terrible times, but due to our past experience we will fight within the system rather than outside of it. The American people are probably already at war with one another, but the tactics will be different. The tentacles must be severed before we are all suffocated.
Not at all. The Democrats gained in the House, and actually won more votes overall than the Republicans. If all districts were identical in size, Democrats would have the majority in the House right now.Quote:
they handed the reigns of spending over to the GOP
Aha. So what you're saying is, any majority in the House of Representatives by any party entitles that one party to do whatever the hell it wants and dictate the actions of the entire federal government?Quote:
the fact that the GOP has enough of a majority in the House to shut the government down over the individual mandate re-enforces the fact that they were literally put there to control rampant spending and Federal dictat, particularly related to this new program
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Anyway, it's only a few dozen Tea Partiers holding the Republicans in thrall, as they are the only ones actually not willing to pass a clean CR right now.
What part of "all spending bills originate in the House" is unclear to you?
Also, the American Revolution was won by a tiny, radical segment of the American colonial population. If radicalization has spread to even 10% of the GOP and independents, national stability will be shaken. It isn't like the GOP is demanding that we implement Sharia Law, they asked that the individual mandate be pushed back until the kinks are better worked out. The response has been hilarious and I welcome the failure to negotiate an inch.