House Res. 368 Proves Govn't Shutdown Is Republicans Doing

Gdizzle

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Transcript from the discussion on HR 368:

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Q4irM4Q.png">
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,263
Reaction score
2,469
Points
113
Tell chris that we aren't a democracy.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,244
Reaction score
233
Points
63
The House has passed bills to fund the government over and over. It is the Senate that has blocked the money. Harry Reid to the DC mayor. "Shut up. You'll ruin this."

Bad, you are smarter than this.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,263
Reaction score
2,469
Points
113
What the actual fvck!?

This article from The Guardian headline "Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz lead shutdown protest at war memorial" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/13/sarah-palin-ted-cruz-veterans-shutdown

It's brilliant! Shut down the government and then protest shutting down the government. I can't read any more of this today.
Ummmm. It's an open air memorial that is open 24/7 and unguarded. So they are going out of their way to prevent people from visiting.
If you think it's ok to maximize pain on people for politics, you are attacking the wrong people.

It's funny, the 13% shutdown is so invisible that Obama has to pull stunts like this to make it seem painful. 80% of the country is unaffected. Now that's democracy.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
3,742
Points
113
The House has passed bills to fund the government over and over. It is the Senate that has blocked the money. Harry Reid to the DC mayor. "Shut up. You'll ruin this."

Bad, you are smarter than this.
Said a senior administration official: "We are winning...It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result."

Wall Street Journal article last week
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
3,742
Points
113
GDizzle- Do you understand that this conversation basically offers the R's that they could have avoided shutting down the government if they simply gave the D's everything they want (surrender). Do you realize that the D's have had the same opportunity all along? All the D's would have had to offer at any time in the process would have been a compromise of any kind and this would have been over. Most of congress (including the Dems) see the Medical device tax to be bad law- there's a agreement over that and even Franken and Klobuchar have been CAMPAIGNING to get rid of it. Harry Reid said it was a "stupid tax" (then said he shouldn't have been honest and said that). This has been offered to the Dems as a compromise.

But the Dems are not out to keep the government open or to pay our debts. The Dems beleive the media has their backs and that they can exact a beating on the R's by giving them nothing. They think that the R's will take the blame and the party will be split. This is not about serving any democracy GDizzle -don't be so dumb. This is all about power and about winning. The majority of Americans say there should be compromise- Can you name one thing the Dems have compromised on? Has Obama negotiated and given one offer? Can you name that offer?
 

Gdizzle

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Ummmm. It's an open air memorial that is open 24/7 and unguarded. So they are going out of their way to prevent people from visiting.
If you think it's ok to maximize pain on people for politics, you are attacking the wrong people.

It's funny, the 13% shutdown is so invisible that Obama has to pull stunts like this to make it seem painful. 80% of the country is unaffected. Now that's democracy.
Thanks for pointing that out.
 

Gdizzle

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
Points
16
GDizzle- Do you understand that this conversation basically offers the R's that they could have avoided shutting down the government if they simply gave the D's everything they want (surrender). Do you realize that the D's have had the same opportunity all along? All the D's would have had to offer at any time in the process would have been a compromise of any kind and this would have been over. Most of congress (including the Dems) see the Medical device tax to be bad law- there's a agreement over that and even Franken and Klobuchar have been CAMPAIGNING to get rid of it. Harry Reid said it was a "stupid tax" (then said he shouldn't have been honest and said that). This has been offered to the Dems as a compromise.

But the Dems are not out to keep the government open or to pay our debts. The Dems beleive the media has their backs and that they can exact a beating on the R's by giving them nothing. They think that the R's will take the blame and the party will be split. This is not about serving any democracy GDizzle -don't be so dumb. This is all about power and about winning. The majority of Americans say there should be compromise- Can you name one thing the Dems have compromised on? Has Obama negotiated and given one offer? Can you name that offer?
I don't know enough to respond to that. All I am saying is that when there was a provision passed in a less than open/honest manner that essentially places the keys of the government restart in the sole hands of the republican party, something is wrong. I also understand Chris Hollens represents Maryland which has a large federal work force, but his point still stands on its own. I foresee strong opposition to this coming from both sides of the aisle.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,244
Reaction score
233
Points
63
If Obama and the Ds were willing to give the self employed, the small business owners, and the common man the same break they gave to BIG government, BIG labor, and BIG business (delay ACA) this would have been settled some time ago. Hard to understand. Seems suicidal to me.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,496
Reaction score
1,168
Points
113
If Obama and the Ds were willing to give the self employed, the small business owners, and the common man the same break they gave to BIG government, BIG labor, and BIG business (delay ACA) this would have been settled some time ago. Hard to understand. Seems suicidal to me.
Again, not the point Gdiz is making. Does anyone have an actual comment on the OP contents? I am with Gdiz. I don't understand the archaic parliamentary procedures in place, but it sure appears to me that the provision leaves the keys to procedurally moving ahead in the hands of one person, via a rule passed DEMOCRATICALLY, to overrule the normal procedure.

BGA, I disagree that "this conversation basically offers the R's that they could have avoided shutting down the government if they simply gave the D's everything they want."

I could be wrong, but the way I read this, the rule is preventing discussion or maybe even a vote? Not sure. Seems fishy. Furthermore, I'm not even saying it's illegal. It's probably perfectly legal and for all I know the tactic is used regularly. But bringing it to light seems interesting to me, when juxtaposed with the grandstanding some of the jackass types like Palin, et al are pulling.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,299
Reaction score
3,393
Points
113
The House has passed bills to fund the government over and over. It is the Senate that has blocked the money. Harry Reid to the DC mayor. "Shut up. You'll ruin this."

Bad, you are smarter than this.
Smarter than to laugh at somebody's post without asking your permission first? Guess I'm not.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,299
Reaction score
3,393
Points
113
GDizzle- Do you understand that this conversation basically offers the R's that they could have avoided shutting down the government if they simply gave the D's everything they want (surrender). Do you realize that the D's have had the same opportunity all along? All the D's would have had to offer at any time in the process would have been a compromise of any kind and this would have been over. Most of congress (including the Dems) see the Medical device tax to be bad law- there's a agreement over that and even Franken and Klobuchar have been CAMPAIGNING to get rid of it. Harry Reid said it was a "stupid tax" (then said he shouldn't have been honest and said that). This has been offered to the Dems as a compromise.

But the Dems are not out to keep the government open or to pay our debts. The Dems beleive the media has their backs and that they can exact a beating on the R's by giving them nothing. They think that the R's will take the blame and the party will be split. This is not about serving any democracy GDizzle -don't be so dumb. This is all about power and about winning. The majority of Americans say there should be compromise- Can you name one thing the Dems have compromised on? Has Obama negotiated and given one offer? Can you name that offer?
This is a simple matter of giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,782
Reaction score
1,737
Points
113
If Obama and the Ds were willing to give the self employed, the small business owners, and the common man the same break they gave to BIG government, BIG labor, and BIG business (delay ACA) this would have been settled some time ago. Hard to understand. Seems suicidal to me.
I applaud you for making a point without insulting anyone. Well done.

The republicans attempted to subvert the will of the American people by engaging in extortion. When they got whacked for it they scrambled and tried to save face by partially backing down and backing off. Obama has learned the hard way that it doesn't do any good to help them.
 

Gdizzle

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
Points
16
It's funny, the 13% shutdown is so invisible that Obama has to pull stunts like this to make it seem painful. 80% of the country is unaffected. Now that's democracy.
Does this 13% account for the rolling effects of shutting down agencies such as the EPA, etc.? I personally am involved in a project that cannot continue because a permit cannot be obtained. Workers are twiddling their thumbs on site. This is not meant to be argumentative with that number, I just don't have a larger perspective. I also don't mean to continue this point, because the main idea here, essentially proven by the transcript posted, is that this move was intentional on the part of the republican party. From what I understand it is legal though.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
3,742
Points
113
Again, not the point Gdiz is making. Does anyone have an actual comment on the OP contents? I am with Gdiz. I don't understand the archaic parliamentary procedures in place, but it sure appears to me that the provision leaves the keys to procedurally moving ahead in the hands of one person, via a rule passed DEMOCRATICALLY, to overrule the normal procedure.

BGA, I disagree that "this conversation basically offers the R's that they could have avoided shutting down the government if they simply gave the D's everything they want."

I could be wrong, but the way I read this, the rule is preventing discussion or maybe even a vote? Not sure. Seems fishy. Furthermore, I'm not even saying it's illegal. It's probably perfectly legal and for all I know the tactic is used regularly. But bringing it to light seems interesting to me, when juxtaposed with the grandstanding some of the jackass types like Palin, et al are pulling.
Quit right there- that's the closest you have gotten in days to being right.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,496
Reaction score
1,168
Points
113
Quit right there- that's the closest you have gotten in days to being right.
I see. Not discussing it, not refutation, no witty sarcasm with a point, just a baseless personal shot. So you are going DH on it. That's weak, BGA. This proves to me that you don't know that I'm wrong, but don't have enough sack to admit it or just keep your trap shut.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
3,742
Points
113
I see. Not discussing it, not refutation, no witty sarcasm with a point, just a baseless personal shot. So you are going DH on it. That's weak, BGA. This proves to me that you don't know that I'm wrong, but don't have enough sack to admit it or just keep your trap shut.
I told you that you should have quit. Now you have yourself all flustered again.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,263
Reaction score
2,469
Points
113
Does this 13% account for the rolling effects of shutting down agencies such as the EPA, etc.? I personally am involved in a project that cannot continue because a permit cannot be obtained. Workers are twiddling their thumbs on site. This is not meant to be argumentative with that number, I just don't have a larger perspective. I also don't mean to continue this point, because the main idea here, essentially proven by the transcript posted, is that this move was intentional on the part of the republican party. From what I understand it is legal though.
13% of the government is shut down, or 17%, can't recall the number. And a poll said that 80+% of Americans are unaffected. I don't doubt your personal story is true. And it's also true that Obama has ratcheted up as much pain with that small percent as possible, while keeping the mall open for favored political groups. Plenty of disgust is possible on both sides. It is not extortion it is leverage. Each side maximizing their leverage to get what they want and walk the tight rope politically.
It's evident now to me that it was a mistake, because it has taken focus off the obamacare disaster. I don't have a great feel for the politics of the country. But I am part of a growing number of Americans who see the impending disaster, and we are willing to go to great lengths to restore our nation.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,496
Reaction score
1,168
Points
113
It's evident now to me that it was a mistake, because it has taken focus off the obamacare disaster. I don't have a great feel for the politics of the country. But I am part of a growing number of Americans who see the impending disaster, and we are willing to go to great lengths to restore our nation.
Maybe you should consider trying things that work, instead of trying things that piss people off. Seriously. Pushing against a deadline again on the debt limit? Whether or not the consequences would be as disastrous as most predict is irrelevant. Enough people think it is to make it political suicide. Your principled approach is going to get us all killed.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,263
Reaction score
2,469
Points
113
Maybe you should consider trying things that work, instead of trying things that piss people off. Seriously. Pushing against a deadline again on the debt limit? Whether or not the consequences would be as disastrous as most predict is irrelevant. Enough people think it is to make it political suicide. Your principled approach is going to get us all killed.
I don't follow your logic. It's going to get us killed whether or not the consequences are bad?

Not having a principled approach has gotten us into an awful mess. Just what do you think the endgame is with the global money printing, global debt bomb, spending out of control in the us, Europe, Japan, china? It's going to get a lot of people killed jake. Don't confuse the relative calm at present with real stability. It is a disaster.
Yet you have been fooled into thinking that balancing a budget and ONLY spending 3 trillion dollars will get us all killed? Oh goodness.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,496
Reaction score
1,168
Points
113
I don't follow your logic. It's going to get us killed whether or not the consequences are bad?
I'm saying that most people - so-called experts chief among them - think that not extending the debt limit will be disastrous. In fact the only people that seem to think otherwise are either politicians or talking-head, one-message, one-view, know-it-alls.

So, whether or not in a perfect world we could hold the debt limit firm and be fine with all the right moves doesn't matter. The world isn't perfect. The game isn't over by simply holding it firm. Several other moves need to be made. Difficult moves. And people and markets and companies all have to NOT panic and trust that the moves are right. They have to be sequenced properly. The political climate is hardly in a position where it makes "all the right moves" and quite likely people will panic.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,263
Reaction score
2,469
Points
113
I'm saying that most people - so-called experts chief among them - think that not extending the debt limit will be disastrous. In fact the only people that seem to think otherwise are either politicians or talking-head, one-message, one-view, know-it-alls.

So, whether or not in a perfect world we could hold the debt limit firm and be fine with all the right moves doesn't matter. The world isn't perfect. The game isn't over by simply holding it firm. Several other moves need to be made. Difficult moves. And people and markets and companies all have to NOT panic and trust that the moves are right. They have to be sequenced properly. The political climate is hardly in a position where it makes "all the right moves" and quite likely people will panic.
You would panic if government cut spending by 13%? I'm sorry, but I don't think you can blame republicans if democrats responded to a debt ceiling limit by trying to scare the nation, threaten default, etc. that's the only thing that will cause panic. Obama could come out tomorrow and say that no matter what, we will not default. Why do you think he won't do that? Why isn't that hostage taking, extortion, all the rest?
Jake, it would be really nice if we could sit down after crises have passed, and rationally discuss things like this. But when is the last time that happened? Certainly not in even my grandparents lifetime.
Jake, the status quo is very powerful. They want you to be scared. They don't want to give you the chance to see that we can and have the power to cut spending. Why might that be?
Know what the last "disastrous" move was? The sequester.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
3,742
Points
113
I'm saying that most people - so-called experts chief among them - think that not extending the debt limit will be disastrous. In fact the only people that seem to think otherwise are either politicians or talking-head, one-message, one-view, know-it-alls.

So, whether or not in a perfect world we could hold the debt limit firm and be fine with all the right moves doesn't matter. The world isn't perfect. The game isn't over by simply holding it firm. Several other moves need to be made. Difficult moves. And people and markets and companies all have to NOT panic and trust that the moves are right. They have to be sequenced properly. The political climate is hardly in a position where it makes "all the right moves" and quite likely people will panic.


Where does Moody's fit in your list? Because Moody's is more concerned about the fact that we are not dealing with long term entitlements than defaulting.

Here's what Moody's said a few days back:

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,496
Reaction score
1,168
Points
113
You would panic if government cut spending by 13%?

Um, what?


Jake, it would be really nice if we could sit down after crises have passed, and rationally discuss things like this. But when is the last time that happened? Certainly not in even my grandparents lifetime.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the way the negotiations started leading up to this, yet again, brinkmanship was "end Obamacare or else." That was $hitty strategy, if you want to start a conversation. That tactic clearly has been an abysmal failure.


Know what the last "disastrous" move was? The sequester.

I actually agree with your point on this one. That said, they aren't parallel. I also agree with you that we could (and obviously should) service the debt, if the debt ceiling isn't raised. But the necessary step of instantly cutting government spending to the level necessary would be a huge shock to the economy. It seems to be a pick your poison choice.


Where does Moody's fit in your list? Because Moody's is more concerned about the fact that we are not dealing with long term entitlements than defaulting.

That's a valid opinion that they state. What do they say about cutting spending permanently 25% in one day?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,263
Reaction score
2,469
Points
113
Um, what?

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the way the negotiations started leading up to this, yet again, brinkmanship was "end Obamacare or else." That was $hitty strategy, if you want to start a conversation. That tactic clearly has been an abysmal failure.

I actually agree with your point on this one. That said, they aren't parallel. I also agree with you that we could (and obviously should) service the debt, if the debt ceiling isn't raised. But the necessary step of instantly cutting government spending to the level necessary would be a huge shock to the economy. It seems to be a pick your poison choice.

That's a valid opinion that they state. What do they say about cutting spending permanently 25% in one day?
13% is a rough estimate of the needed spending cuts to balance revenues and spending if we cannot borrow anymore. So, that would cause panic?

If all they said and offered was end obamacare or else, I'd agree with you.

I agree that a shocked spending cut is not ideal. Far better to sit down, implement the recommendations of the bi partisan budget committee from 2 years ago, and extend the debt limit on condition of implementing real entitlement reform and spending cuts.

It's a valid statement and proof that the debt ceiling does not equal default. So why are so many getting away with mentioning default time and again? How is this lie being spread so far and wide and for what purpose?
 
Top Bottom