Archive

Can we just shut the government down already?

  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1511387 wrote:Quaker go get some Heggy's candy and calm the fuck down.
    lol'd. Will rep.
    IggyPride00;1511407 wrote:An excerpt from a letter written today by Harry Reid to John Boehner.

    I wonder if he actually did face pressure to do so.

    I honestly wouldn't have minded if he had done it.
    Not that I presume to have special insight, but why do we need much more than "the most critical security needs" covered? At what level of minutia were we operating before?
  • I Wear Pants
    I personally think thinks like Food and Drug inspections are important, I like having the EPA, I think NASA is an extremely valuable organization. I like knowing what's in my food and side effects of drugs and there being rigorous standards for them. I think NASA and the work they do inspires children like almost nothing else can. They can make people want to literally reach for the stars. Acting like these things and a bunch of others have no value is a bit ridiculous to me.
  • gut
    Glory Days;1511166 wrote:yeah, that's a fair comparison. a few new cars weren't made is equal to government services being provided.... more federal employees didn't go to work yesterday than everyone employed by the auto industry combined. fail.
    Don't backpedal because you were just made to look foolish. You asked what companies have 40% or more of their people on vacation. I gave you an answer, one of the largest industries in America.

    LMFAO...most of those employees will have made-up their "lost day" before lunch.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1511410 wrote: I wonder if he actually did face pressure to do so.
    If he did, it wasn't politically expedient for him to do so. Don't doubt for one second that weasel wouldn't be doing this in Boehner's situation. Hell, that's kind of how they passed Obamakare in the first place.
  • I Wear Pants
    gut;1511416 wrote:If he did, it wasn't politically expedient for him to do so. Don't doubt for one second that weasel wouldn't be doing this in Boehner's situation. Hell, that's kind of how they passed Obamakare in the first place.
    Um. they didn't shut the government down or even threaten to do so if ACA didn't get passed. So no, not how they passed that bill.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1511424 wrote:Um. they didn't shut the government down or even threaten to do so if ACA didn't get passed. So no, not how they passed that bill.
    And the Repubs, who control the House, decided not to fund Obamakare...then it's actually the Dems who are shutting the govt down.

    It's actually pretty similar to the reconciliation move they used to pass Obamakare, only this time the Repubs have some power to stop it.

    But at the end of the day, this is the culture and manner of business that Obama, Reid and Pelosi established back in 2009. Turns out that maybe steamrolling your opposition is a bad approach if you'll spend the next 6 years with monstrous partisan divides.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1511412 wrote:I personally think thinks like Food and Drug inspections are important, I like having the EPA, I think NASA is an extremely valuable organization. I like knowing what's in my food and side effects of drugs and there being rigorous standards for them. I think NASA and the work they do inspires children like almost nothing else can. They can make people want to literally reach for the stars. Acting like these things and a bunch of others have no value is a bit ridiculous to me.
    Not that I have a problem with the FDA inherently. Despite my Libertarian leanings, this is one of the organizations I'd probably insist on keeping, though I would change the structure a bit.

    Given the number of drugs (and, depending on how you view it, foods as well) that get approved by the FDA, but end up being harmful, sometimes I wonder how good a job they actually do at the benefits you've mentioned.

    Instead of approving or rejecting, I wish they'd merely focus more on enforcing open disclosure as far as contents and ingredients are concerned. From there, our scientific communities (both public and private, as they currently are) would be able to make public the health benefits or drawbacks. Upon such, people could just consume what they wanted.

    As for NASA, nothing you've mentioned is evidenced. It is mostly private opinion and anecdote.

    This isn't to say, of course, that I don't think space travel should be done. Merely that I think it is something that can be privatized.
  • BoatShoes
    "Tea Party Activist" to primary John Boehner. Smart guy. Knows that after Boehner eventually lets a clean CR come to the floor he's going to be rolling in campaign contributions.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/01/tea-party-activist-launches-primary-challenge-to-boehner/
  • QuakerOats
    I Wear Pants;1511424 wrote:Um. they didn't shut the government down or even threaten to do so if ACA didn't get passed. So no, not how they passed that bill.


    They didn't have to; they just bribed a few key democrats to get the final votes they needed.
  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;1511427 wrote:Not that I have a problem with the FDA inherently. Despite my Libertarian leanings, this is one of the organizations I'd probably insist on keeping, though I would change the structure a bit.

    Given the number of drugs (and, depending on how you view it, foods as well) that get approved by the FDA, but end up being harmful, sometimes I wonder how good a job they actually do at the benefits you've mentioned.

    Instead of approving or rejecting, I wish they'd merely focus more on enforcing open disclosure as far as contents and ingredients are concerned. From there, our scientific communities (both public and private, as they currently are) would be able to make public the health benefits or drawbacks. Upon such, people could just consume what they wanted.

    As for NASA, nothing you've mentioned is evidenced. It is mostly private opinion and anecdote.

    This isn't to say, of course, that I don't think space travel should be done. Merely that I think it is something that can be privatized.
    We're going to disagree on NASA, most of their projects would have been impossible in the private sector as they didn't have a profitable end (directly) and have way too much risk. Even now things like the Mars rover would not happen without NASA.

    We are seeing privatization of some things, resupply runs to ISS and Satellite launches being some of the main things. But I think any sort of exploratory missions are always going to be dubiously possible at best in the private sector. It's not a knock on the private sector, it's simply not what they do best.
  • I Wear Pants
    gut;1511426 wrote:And the Repubs, who control the House, decided not to fund Obamakare...then it's actually the Dems who are shutting the govt down.

    It's actually pretty similar to the reconciliation move they used to pass Obamakare, only this time the Repubs have some power to stop it.

    But at the end of the day, this is the culture and manner of business that Obama, Reid and Pelosi established back in 2009. Turns out that maybe steamrolling your opposition is a bad approach if you'll spend the next 6 years with monstrous partisan divides.
    Republicans are the ones who are tacking all sorts of things onto the vote. They're the ones responsible (and the side that's saying "look, we all didn't die lol clearly the gubmint isn't necessary).
  • BGFalcons82
    QuakerOats;1511435 wrote:They didn't have to; they just bribed a few key democrats to get the final votes they needed.
    Yep. I heard on the way home last night that the HealthKare Exchanges in Nebraska will be going up at a higher rate than most of the country - http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/nebraskans-get-hint-at-potential-obamacare-rates/article_ad157d6a-c851-5b8d-a39e-68d6e17cd006.html

    Bet Ben Nelson didn't think his Cornhusker Kickback would be directed at Nebraskan's balls.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1511443 wrote:Republicans are the ones who are tacking all sorts of things onto the vote. They're the ones responsible (and the side that's saying "look, we all didn't die lol clearly the gubmint isn't necessary).
    No, Dems brought all this on by trampling Repubs in 2009-10 and especially ram-rodding Obamakare without bipartisan support and via a legislative end-around.

    Shoes kind of on the other foot now and Dems are crying foul.

    Democrats are just as tired and useless as the Repubs. They are every bit as much to blame for this mess because NOTHING gets done in Washington these days by any other means. The Dems are too busy demogoguing trying to win 2014 elections...absolutely fucking disgraceful.


    Once more, this is the table set by Obama, Pelosi and Reid back in 2009. Bipartisanship was dead, because they didn't need it. And even now their idea of bipartisan is the Repubs give them everything they want. The Democratic party is led by complete assclowns.
  • queencitybuckeye
    I Wear Pants;1511443 wrote:Republicans are the ones who are tacking all sorts of things onto the vote.
    How odd that doing so results in a gnashing of teeth in this instance, when it's been SOP by both parties forever.
  • gut
    queencitybuckeye;1511449 wrote:How odd that doing so results in a gnashing of teeth in this instance, when it's been SOP by both parties forever.
    Good point.

    Reid has continued to do that in the Senate even after losing their near supermajority. "Fills the tree" and then blames Repubs for filibustering. It's a really neat trick to control the agenda while protecting your members from a vote and blaming Repubs.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1511448 wrote:No, Dems brought all this on by trampling Repubs in 2009-10 and especially ram-rodding Obamakare without bipartisan support and via a legislative end-around.

    Shoes kind of on the other foot now and Dems are crying foul.

    Democrats are just as tired and useless as the Repubs. They are every bit as much to blame for this mess because NOTHING gets done in Washington these days by any other means. The Dems are too busy demogoguing trying to win 2014 elections...absolutely fucking disgraceful.


    Once more, this is the table set by Obama, Pelosi and Reid back in 2009. Bipartisanship was dead, because they didn't need it. And even now their idea of bipartisan is the Repubs give them everything they want. The Democratic party is led by complete assclowns.

    Just out of curiosity...what, if anything, might have the unholy trinity of Obama-Pelosi-Reid have offered Republicans to get their support in those early years if Mitt Romney's healthcare plan is considered a socialist travesty???

    You overestimate the reasonableness of Republicans when there is a democrat in the white house.

    And either way...the onus on funding the government is on congress. If they're happy to not pass a funding bill that has any hope of becoming law because they're salty about not being able to win elections then go right ahead. Everybody knows who's ultimately culpable here.
  • BoatShoes
    BGFalcons82;1511444 wrote:Yep. I heard on the way home last night that the HealthKare Exchanges in Nebraska will be going up at a higher rate than most of the country - http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/nebraskans-get-hint-at-potential-obamacare-rates/article_ad157d6a-c851-5b8d-a39e-68d6e17cd006.html

    Bet Ben Nelson didn't think his Cornhusker Kickback would be directed at Nebraskan's balls.
    I'm sure all of those Nebraskans are going to be unhappy now that they're able to buy subsidized individual health insurance. Just call the Nebraska exchange FreedomCare and Republicans would jump in line saying "this is way better than that Obamacare!"
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1511458 wrote:I'm sure all of those Nebraskans are going to be unhappy now that they're able to buy subsidized individual health insurance.


    They will jump for joy over the fact that an average family of 4 will fork over over $7,400 in higher costs, and when they find out the lowest cost premium is going from $26 to $162 under obamaKare, just a miniscule increase of 6X.

    Keep lobbing the softballs.
  • IggyPride00
    BoatShoes;1511456 wrote:Just out of curiosity...what, if anything, might have the unholy trinity of Obama-Pelosi-Reid have offered Republicans to get their support in those early years if Mitt Romney's healthcare plan is considered a socialist travesty???

    You overestimate the reasonableness of Republicans when there is a democrat in the white house.

    And either way...the onus on funding the government is on congress. If they're happy to not pass a funding bill that has any hope of becoming law because they're salty about not being able to win elections then go right ahead. Everybody knows who's ultimately culpable here.
    I agree with this.

    Mitch McConnell famously said the night Obama was inaugurated his goal was to make him a 1 term president.

    Giving him any help passing any kind of Healthcare reform, no matter what it was, was totally off the table as it would have all but assured smooth sailing to re-election (which he won anyway).

    There was nothing substantive they could have offered McConnell to get any Republican votes. Jim Demint's goal was to make it his Waterloo, and they wanted to break him.

    I hate that it was a party line vote, but the idea that Republicans wanted to cooperate in the process and Democrats wouldn't let them is ludicrous considering Max Baucus (one of hte most Conservative Dem senators) spent 9 months (to the horror of liberals at the time had you been reading the blogs) working with Republicans in committee trying to get their support. They just weren't going to do universal healthcare no matter what.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lFyFJeZSY
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1511441 wrote:We're going to disagree on NASA, most of their projects would have been impossible in the private sector as they didn't have a profitable end (directly) and have way too much risk. Even now things like the Mars rover would not happen without NASA.

    We are seeing privatization of some things, resupply runs to ISS and Satellite launches being some of the main things. But I think any sort of exploratory missions are always going to be dubiously possible at best in the private sector. It's not a knock on the private sector, it's simply not what they do best.
    I don't know. There are large expeditions overseas, scholarships, and such that are funded privately with no thought to full profitability.

    Moreover, there are a lot of people who feel the same way about the importance of space exploration as you, and it's possible they could largely be funded without compulsion.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1511456 wrote: You overestimate the reasonableness of Republicans when there is a democrat in the white house.
    That has never been true, at least not nearly to this level, before Obama/Pelosi/Reid. They refuse to negotiate. When Repubs don't cave, they go to the liberal media to demagogue Repubs and liberals swallow that bullshit hook, line and sinker. EVERY Potus has had to deal with a divided Congress or the other party having control of both...none of them have been as remotely as ineffective as Obama. I don't even know why it's a debate at this point - it is plainly obvious Obama has no such leadership capability nor does he even have an interest in trying.

    Maybe, just maybe Repubs opposed Obamakare partly because it will be another massive entitlement we can't afford. Did Dems offer any meaningful Medicare or SS reform to pay for it? No. There was no compromise or bipartisanship - that has been a hallmark of the Axis of Incompetence.

    I would argue that the "leadership" of Reid, Pelosi and Obama has been very poisonous to working with a divided govt if anything they've done could be considered leadership. As I said, they took a hardline stance because they believed, incorrectly, that an era of Democratic super-majorities had been ushered in. The only reason they haven't paid a steeper political price for that is because the liberal media is in their hip pocket.
  • gut
    IggyPride00;1511473 wrote: Mitch McConnell famously said the night Obama was inaugurated his goal was to make him a 1 term president.
    No he did not. That comment came in late Oct of 2010. That is a direct reflection of the damage done by the manner in which Obama/Pelosi/Reid chose to steamroll Repubs.

    See, it's easy to believe some of this bullshit when your facts are completely wrong:
    "[INDENT]McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.[/INDENT][INDENT]NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?[/INDENT][INDENT]McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.[/INDENT][INDENT]NJ: What are the big issues?[/INDENT][INDENT]McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him."[/INDENT].
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
  • majorspark
    O-Trap;1511126 wrote:Perhaps I've misunderstood this statement, so please bear with me, but it sounds as though you are espousing the notion that a war already engaged ought to be ceased on the bases of: (a) moral roots of the war, (b) the lack of leadership from the Commander-In-Chief, or (c) the parasitic value, but NOT on the basis of (d) whether or not it is affordable and/or responsible, given the sum total of our domestic financial state.

    Have I misunderstood what you meant?
    Yes. In the post you quoted I specifically mentioned blood and "treasure". Its a common phrase to refer to the human and monetary cost of war. The treasure part would cover (d). All I am saying is once troops are committed to war and are actively engaged in combat and funding is attempted to be cut by congress to essentially force the president to surrender, things really need to be going shitty. It would take some balls otherwise. Harry Reid can feign some sort of moral high ground with his letter to Boehner all he wants but he knew he would have been committing political suicide. As a side note Reid voted for the war in Iraq house republicans holding up the show have always been against Obamacare.

    The republicans are taking some political risks in this instance but the so called "suicide caucus" and "wacko-birds" are no where near political suicide. All this hand wringing and people pissing down their legs is so unnecessary. I mean Boatshoes should be out getting drunk celebrating the end of the republican party as the conservative right wing "wacko-birds" are about to be flushed out of political existence. Instead he is running around beside himself that someone has balls in the republican party. And speaking of suicide, with the ever benevolent federal government only functioning at 80% if this goes on too long someone may need to keep an eye on Boatshoes.
  • Glory Days
    queencitybuckeye;1511168 wrote:Way too many people digging holes and filling them in, way too few people doing productive work.
    I've seen the auto industry's union worked assembly lines, you just described them to the T.