Govt. Shutdown

[bravesnumberone]

Few hours to go. Been watching a little C-SPAN, and it's embarrassing to say the least.

[zitothebrave]

Sad v part is these fools will lead to our credit rating taking another hit

[The Chosen One]

Watching CSPAN and some of these callers have to be plants.

People can't really be this stupid.

[zitothebrave]

Watching CSPAN and some of these callers have to be plants.

People can't really be this stupid.

Well they are watching CSpan :icwudt:

[The Chosen One]

House will pass a clean bill soon.

Just theater for their tantrum.

[weso1]

Will this end the world like the horrific sequestration did??? on pins and needles.:popcorn:

[The Chosen One]

Some of the callers on CSPAN were hilarious. At one point, some guy from Montana called and said we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, let us go bankrupt tomorrow.

[The Chosen One]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better...

Rick Santorum is on FOX NEWS asking for House Republicans to be "reasonable" and not shut down the government.


RICK FAWKIN SANTORUM.

[weso1]

Some of the callers on CSPAN were hilarious. At one point, some guy from Montana called and said we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, let us go bankrupt tomorrow.

Troll trolling trolls.

[weso1]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better...

Rick Santorum is on FOX NEWS asking for House Republicans to be "reasonable" and not shut down the government.


RICK FAWKIN SANTORUM.

That... didn't actually happen.

[Bdawg2309]

That... didn't actually happen.

he tweeted about it

[The Chosen One]

Government shut down.

Wait, does this mean my cable and internet are about to go out?

[NinersSBChamps]

This is awful news. I hope my college got their payment from the GI Bill or else I'll be out of school for non payment. Additionally I am not getting my housing allowance either which is what veterans use to help or in my case pay rent. This is unbelievable.

[The Chosen One]

This is awful news. I hope my college got their payment from the GI Bill or else I'll be out of school for non payment. Additionally I am not getting my housing allowance either which is what veterans use to help or in my case pay rent. This is unbelievable.

Don't worry, everyone elses tuition at the current cost of college, should cover schools for at least the next 5 years. lol

[goldfly]

hey, everything we don't want or need keeps going

the things that help people and are helpful etc etc etc. are stopped immediately

America in a nutshell

what a joke

[NinersSBChamps]

Don't worry, everyone elses tuition at the current cost of college, should cover schools for at least the next 5 years. lol

More than likely. I am more concerned with how I am going to pay rent which is due this week.

[The Chosen One]

More than likely. I am more concerned with how I am going to pay rent which is due this week.

Should've made some wagers and bets in the Wild Wild West forum.

[Bdawg2309]

last time there was a government shutdown, the braves won the WS

[57Brave]

More than likely. I am more concerned with how I am going to pay rent which is due this week.


According to some fellow Braves fans you should have planned your life better. Your lack of personal responsibility is the culprit when losing your schooling and housing. It is your fault for relying on the GI Bill . you NinerSBChamp in the eyes of the Paul's, Cruz' Coburns, Canters, Ryans etc etc etc are a taker and are getting what you deserve.

Shoot, get a couple jobs and quit posting so much. The time you use posting is time you should be flipping burgers or rising to the top ( for less than minimum wage) or whatever it is TBaggers say you should be doing

[zitothebrave]

The dumb part is that nothing good will come from this, they'll just pass the normal budget and it will cost MORE money because they'll have to pay people overtime to make up for time lost.

All incumbents can look forward to not getting my vote.

[thethe]

Its just frustrating all around. The market will probably not respond favorably to this so everyones retirement savings and investment portfolios are going to take a hit. There is just no end to the governments inadequacies. Wish people didn't have to depend on them so much just to get by.

[zitothebrave]

If they resolve it today, the market won't take too much of a hit most likely but a dragged out battle will ruin the country's economy. All because of some peacocking over Obamacare. Pass the ****ing budget then work on the grassroots level to get rid of Obamacare. I'm not a fan of it (I think you either go full on universal healthcare or nowhere) but doing this is not good.

Anyone who votes for anyone in office now should reevaluate themselves.

I'm going to actively start writing my state legislature about bringing up a constitutional amendment for term limits on the douchebags in congress. Maybe if they didn't have to think about being reelected they'd use their brains not their wallets.

[57Brave]

for every Ted Cruz there is a Bernie Sanders
for every Paul Ryan the is a John Lewis
for every Mike Lee there is an Elizabeth Warren
for every Eric Canter there is a John Dingle

there are good incumbents - ones dedicated to public service - on both sides of the 2 party spectrum
I think huge turnover and term limits are a good piece of what s created the mess we are in today.
Institutional knowledge is invaluable -- in any walk of life - let alone governing 300M people

[57Brave]

If they resolve it today, the market won't take too much of a hit most likely but a dragged out battle will ruin the country's economy. All because of some peacocking over Obamacare. Pass the ****ing budget then work on the grassroots level to get rid of Obamacare. I'm not a fan of it (I think you either go full on universal healthcare or nowhere) but doing this is not good.

Anyone who votes for anyone in office now should reevaluate themselves.

I'm going to actively start writing my state legislature about bringing up a constitutional amendment for term limits on the douchebags in congress. Maybe if they didn't have to think about being reelected they'd use their brains not their wallets.

The one size fits all philosophy a pox on both their houses --- just doesn't apply. Kinda like a brown dog bit me so -- all brown dogs will bite me

For Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, the move is ironic. She has been trying for more than a half-year to go to a conference to work out dramatic differences between the Senate budget and the House version. Senate and House Republicans have objected, repeatedly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/budget-conference-republicans_n_4020621.html

[weso1]

Has the economy collapsed yet?

[Tapate50]

[QUOTE=57Brave;47703]The one size fits all philosophy a pox on both their houses --- just doesn't apply. Kinda like a brown dog bit me so -- all brown dogs will bite me

For Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, the move is ironic. She has been trying for more than a half-year to go to a conference to work out dramatic differences between the Senate budget and the House version. Senate and House Republicans have objected, repeatedly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/budget-conference-republicans_n_4020621.html[/]
Hang up from the house is that top aids, staff, of govt WILL NOT get govt subsidies for their health care and that the individual mandate be pushed back. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Seems in a time where we need to be squeezing 2 dimes out of 10 cents that it's a pretty important example to set.

[Julio3000]

Hang up from the house is that top aids, staff, of govt WILL NOT get govt subsidies for their health care and that the individual mandate be pushed back. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Seems in a time where we need to be squeezing 2 dimes out of 10 cents that it's a pretty important example to set.

Is a budget bill the appropriate venue to demand the pushback of the individual mandate?

[Tapate50]

Is a budget bill the appropriate venue to demand the pushback of the individual mandate?

I don't have access to the docket going forward so it might be their only shot. It also depends on what your constituents are telling you to do. That would be a novel idea.

[Julio3000]

I don't have access to the docket going forward so it might be their only shot. It also depends on what your constituents are telling you to do. That would be a novel idea.

That's interesting take on public service. It seems to me (again...) that this Congress has no interest in actually doing the work of governing.

This is another problem with heavily gerrymandered districts. Some ideological purity test can end up holding the rest of the country hostage.

Seriously. If you want to defund or delay the ACA, pass a bill to do it, then get it through both houses and get it signed. Oh, is that not going to happen? Then grow up, admit that you lost, and go win some more elections.

[Tapate50]

That's interesting take on public service. It seems to me (again...) that this Congress has no interest in actually doing the work of governing.

This is another problem with heavily gerrymandered districts. Some ideological purity test can end up holding the rest of the country hostage.

Seriously. If you want to defund or delay the ACA, pass a bill to do it, then get it through both houses and get it signed. Oh, is that not going to happen? Then grow up, admit that you lost, and go win some more elections.

What about the govt subsidy for their health care? That not worth bargaining on?

[Julio3000]

I'd say that was a CYA attempt. Is it worth shutting down the government over? Personally, I'd say no. I'd bet the majority of Americans would, as well.

[Metaphysicist]

If "bargaining" = "shutting down the government," then no.

[sturg33]

The world will end any minute

[acesfull86]

Is a budget bill the appropriate venue to demand the pushback of the individual mandate?

I guess they're using whatever leverage they think they have. I don't believe the Dems are going to be interested in negotiating after the fact.

[50PoundHead]

I guess they're using whatever leverage they think they have. I don't believe the Dems are going to be interested in negotiating after the fact.

That's it in a nutshell. There will likely be changes, perhaps significant ones, to the Affordable Care Act down the road, but I doubt it will ever be completely repealed. It's a high-risk strategy, but then again, most of the people in the House who are pushing the shutdown strategy are in very safe seats and a lot of moderate Republicans are absolutely petrified of primary challenges from the right. It doesn't take a lot to lose an election where the turnout is less than 25%.

[goldfly]

Bernie Sanders: "I'm an advocate of a single-payer national health care system, but it never occurred to me to bring down the United States government and cause pain for millions of workers because I can't get my way."

[Julio3000]

I guess they're using whatever leverage they think they have. I don't believe the Dems are going to be interested in negotiating after the fact.

I agree. It's not likely to go well for them, though.

[Julio3000]

That's it in a nutshell. There will likely be changes, perhaps significant ones, to the Affordable Care Act down the road, but I doubt it will ever be completely repealed. It's a high-risk strategy, but then again, most of the people in the House who are pushing the shutdown strategy are in very safe seats and a lot of moderate Republicans are absolutely petrified of primary challenges from the right. It doesn't take a lot to lose an election where the turnout is less than 25%.


^^^^

Yeah, a midterm election, too. Yikes.

[57Brave]

Just heard the Air Force v Navy game is being cancelled --- if I'd know that ...

[Tapate50]

I guess they're using whatever leverage they think they have. I don't believe the Dems are going to be interested in negotiating after the fact.

That's about what I'd peg it as. Fighting til the the end I guess.

[acesfull86]

Its just frustrating all around. The market will probably not respond favorably to this so everyones retirement savings and investment portfolios are going to take a hit. There is just no end to the governments inadequacies. Wish people didn't have to depend on them so much just to get by.

One way to lessen the hit on the economy would be to begin to privatize those services that are not essential.

While I agree with the Republicans that this is a hideous law, their strategy pisses me off (not because I care about a gov't showdown, but because I ultimately think they are going to lose). They have had how many months now to see this coming? Why not start this fight earlier with a better strategy? In the meantime, the public has been turning on this law steadily. Maybe the Reps would have had more public support if they played their hand better.

And I don't blame Ted Cruz...he is just filling the massive void in leadership present in the GOP. I wouldn't pick Boehner to lead a cub scout group, much less the House of Representatives.

[The Chosen One]

Public support has been going down because the GOP has beat that drum pretty hard.

[Metaphysicist]

One way to lessen the hit on the economy would be to begin to privatize those services that are not essential.

Hopefully this will work out as well as all those privatized prisons! Anything the government currently does would be better if someone was using it to make money!

[bravesnumberone]

That's interesting take on public service. It seems to me (again...) that this Congress has no interest in actually doing the work of governing.

This is another problem with heavily gerrymandered districts. Some ideological purity test can end up holding the rest of the country hostage.

Seriously. If you want to defund or delay the ACA, pass a bill to do it, then get it through both houses and get it signed. Oh, is that not going to happen? Then grow up, admit that you lost, and go win some more elections.

Disagree with the ACA, but agree with this take. Pass the budget, and if ACA is so bad and detrimental let those who voted for it take the hit come re-election time.

[Coredor]

I agree, but it will be the same thing when those people start taking leadership positions and controlling the agenda in Congress. It's not that there are right wingers in the Republican party, it's that they seem to be controlling the caucus and most seem to be favoring party solidarity. Moderate and conservative Democrats are not nearly as hesitant to break ranks when it suits them. We all know the lunatics are in the asylum, but we're in trouble when they run it.

for every Ted Cruz there is a Bernie Sanders
for every Paul Ryan the is a John Lewis
for every Mike Lee there is an Elizabeth Warren
for every Eric Canter there is a John Dingle

there are good incumbents - ones dedicated to public service - on both sides of the 2 party spectrum
I think huge turnover and term limits are a good piece of what s created the mess we are in today.
Institutional knowledge is invaluable -- in any walk of life - let alone governing 300M people

[cajunrevenge]

I spent some time with my Dad today and he listens to talk radio and listening to the right wing radio hosts bitch about how we how to stop Obama and Obamacare really pissed me off. Maybe if the Republican establishment didnt insist on nominating a piece of **** candidate like Romney they would have the presidency and wouldnt have to go thru this bull ****. Keep nominating moderate losers with no chance to win because they are "electable". Instead they railroad the best candidate because he believes in a sane foreign policy.

Democrats equally piss me off because of their bitching and moaning about how the cupboard is bare. God forbid the Department of Veterans Affairs cant spend 560k on art work. Maybe the Coast Guard doesnt spend 150k on "Cubicle Furniture Rehab". There should be no budget unless its balanced. If Democrats cant figure it out then resign and let someone who can into office.

[goldfly]

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1378217_550226618388312_1813376826_n.jpg

[The Chosen One]

I spent some time with my Dad today and he listens to talk radio and listening to the right wing radio hosts bitch about how we how to stop Obama and Obamacare really pissed me off. Maybe if the Republican establishment didnt insist on nominating a piece of **** candidate like Romney they would have the presidency and wouldnt have to go thru this bull ****. Keep nominating moderate losers with no chance to win because they are "electable". Instead they railroad the best candidate because he believes in a sane foreign policy.

Democrats equally piss me off because of their bitching and moaning about how the cupboard is bare. God forbid the Department of Veterans Affairs cant spend 560k on art work. Maybe the Coast Guard doesnt spend 150k on "Cubicle Furniture Rehab". There should be no budget unless its balanced. If Democrats cant figure it out then resign and let someone who can into office.
Yeah...

If Santorum, Perry, or Newt would've been nominated over Romney, we're probably looking at one of the biggest electoral blowouts since Reagan-Dukakis.

Romney and McCain were the best possible candidates to go up against Obama both times, because both are considered moderates that aren't looney tunes. Unfortunately both didn't have the balls to stand up to the Tea Party and that's why neither got elected. I mean, McCain chose Palin that was his writing on the wall, and of course the Paul Ryan move, while better than Palin was Romney's bone to the TP.

[acesfull86]

Hopefully this will work out as well as all those privatized prisons! Anything the government currently does would be better if someone was using it to make money!

Your word, not mine

[57Brave]

The people that brought you the War in Iraq weigh in on shutdown:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/bill_kristol_to_gop_stand_pat/

If I were (R) I would hope to have the good sense to recognize the people that get it wrong over and over and consider if they take a stand why am I taking the same stand.
??
But, I am not (R)
Maybe it is over Obama the person and not the policies?
Maybe it is neo-confederate at it's core.

Just a couple thoughts

[weso1]

Yeah...

If Santorum, Perry, or Newt would've been nominated over Romney, we're probably looking at one of the biggest electoral blowouts since Reagan-Dukakis.

Romney and McCain were the best possible candidates to go up against Obama both times, because both are considered moderates that aren't looney tunes. Unfortunately both didn't have the balls to stand up to the Tea Party and that's why neither got elected. I mean, McCain chose Palin that was his writing on the wall, and of course the Paul Ryan move, while better than Palin was Romney's bone to the TP.

I love getting lectured by the left about not electing partisan politicians when their party is run by Pelosi, Reid and Obama. They passed one of the most partisan legislations of all time. A legislation that almost everyone hates and they had to spend the majority of the time convincing their own party to sign off on it. The only reason it made it through the supreme court as a constitutionally legal legislation was due to a technicality that they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down. Pubs are trying to fix it, by only asking for a one year delay and they are the partisan ones. Come on guys... time to remove the homer glasses. This is the only way pubs can negotiate with Obama, Reid and Pelosi. If you don't want stuff like this to happen then don't elect partisan liberals next time.

[Tapate50]

Hopefully this will work out as well as all those privatized prisons! Anything the government currently does would be better if someone was using it to make money!

Can't tell if serious...

[Julio3000]

I love getting lectured by the left about not electing partisan politicians when their party is run by Pelosi, Reid and Obama. They passed one of the most partisan legislations of all time. A legislation that almost everyone hates and they had to spend the majority of the time convincing their own party to sign off on it. The only reason it made it through the supreme court as a constitutionally legal legislation was due to a technicality that they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down. Pubs are trying to fix it, by only asking for a one year delay and they are the partisan ones. Come on guys... time to remove the homer glasses. This is the only way pubs can negotiate with Obama, Reid and Pelosi. If you don't want stuff like this to happen then don't elect partisan liberals next time.

Well, they used bare-knuckle tactics to get it passed, but I don't think that was the point of the "lecture" about partisanship. Politics is one thing—tough negotiations, grandstanding, etc. I think the point is that this shutdown isn't a product of partisanship as much as it is extreme ideology. The Republicans are being driven by a part of their caucus which, while it plays well within the increasingly monochrome districts of some of the individual members, is out of step with the country as a whole.

The ACA was a product of partisanship, sure—but do remember that Democrats had an elected majority in both houses and held the WH at the time it was passed. It was not a product of liberal ideological purity. The public option was stripped out of it, and the final result was not only a gift to the private sector (extending Bush's full-price Medicare prescription deal, getting support of the major industry groups—pharma, the AMA, the insurers) but was based on Republicans' solution to universal coverage, back when Republicans were a viable national party.

Nancy Pelosi may be politically liberal, but she controls a caucus that is closer to the center than John Boehner's, although it's become less so after a lot of moderate dems lost house seats in 2010. There is no liberal equivalent of the Tea Party that has significant influence.

[Julio3000]

Your word, not mine

Please enlighten me as to how a private prison is preferable, from a humanitarian or economic perspective.

[50PoundHead]

I love getting lectured by the left about not electing partisan politicians when their party is run by Pelosi, Reid and Obama. They passed one of the most partisan legislations of all time. A legislation that almost everyone hates and they had to spend the majority of the time convincing their own party to sign off on it. The only reason it made it through the supreme court as a constitutionally legal legislation was due to a technicality that they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down. Pubs are trying to fix it, by only asking for a one year delay and they are the partisan ones. Come on guys... time to remove the homer glasses. This is the only way pubs can negotiate with Obama, Reid and Pelosi. If you don't want stuff like this to happen then don't elect partisan liberals next time.

As someone firmly left-of-center, I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. There was overreach on the part of Congress in 2009. The more progressive elements in the country have felt shut out since the 1960s, so there was a ton of pent-up demand to do a lot of things (and some of them were pretty stupid). This isn't that different from when Reagan took office in 1980, except that Reagan didn't have a legislative majority.

But it needs to be put in context a bit. I'm not blaming the talk-radio set, but since Clinton, the noise coming from both sides of the spectrum has made it extremely difficult to forge consensus. Add to that the fact that most members of the House of Representatives are firmly ensconced in safe seats and only face opponents within their own party on ideological matters, with incumbent Republicans being attacked usually from their right and incumbent Democrats from their left, the personal cost of reaching consensus (as if a "personal" cost in politics should ever enter into the discussion) is too high for many to bear. It's so nice to be important. Both sides have become increasingly partisan, so the call should go out to voters of both parties to elect people who will work to keep the car on the road instead of the ridiculous grandstanding that is going on.

The legitimacy of the Bush II presidency was questioned by the left, but that didn't stop him from enacting a massive tax cut the country really couldn't afford and undertaking a ridiculous war (or perhaps two) that have caused deficit problems. The right has questioned Obama's legitimacy (in even more unseemly terms) and Congress responded by passing a bunch of progressive stuff that the country is going to have a hard time affording. Add to that the Democratic candidates in the 2008 Presidential race would produce the first non-white President, the first woman President, or a world-class philanderer that made Bill Clinton look like a monk, and the ideological right was armed and ready to start firing.

We're entering Stage 4 of a sixteen-year cycle where the consensus has been broken and I do wonder if it has been broken irreparably. Both sides need to 'fess up here. There are some days that I believe that all we have left to do is wait for the figurative Fort Sumter.

Further, I do agree that the Republicans, while not forced into this strategy, have deemed it the most workable in attempting to highlight the issues with the Affordable Care Act and on-going spending issues they oppose.

PS--One can never prove the negative, but I think Romney is the only Republican who could have come close to Obama. Santorum and Gingrich would have gotten absolutely trounced in my view. I'm not so sure on Perry, but I don't think he could have won given his performance during the primary season.

[acesfull86]

Please enlighten me as to how a private prison is preferable, from a humanitarian or economic perspective.

I will if you or meta enlighten me on where I argued for the privatization of prisons.

I said that we should start trying to privatize functions deemed non-essential...as far as I know, all federal prisons are open and operating as usual despite the shutdown.

[weso1]

I realized last election that personality is the most important characteristic in a presidential election. I think only Perry and Cain had the personalities to beat Obama, but neither was ready and Cain will never be ready.

Romney had everything but the personality.

[Julio3000]

I will if you or meta enlighten me on where I argued for the privatization of prisons.

I said that we should start trying to privatize functions deemed non-essential...as far as I know, all federal prisons are open and operating as usual despite the shutdown.

Aiight. I misunderstood your highlighting of the word "anything."

Which non-essential functions would you start with?

[50PoundHead]

I realized last election that personality is the most important characteristic in a presidential election. I think only Perry and Cain had the personalities to beat Obama, but neither was ready and Cain will never be ready.

Romney had everything but the personality.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 60 and--I'm not trying to sound haughty here--I figured that out in 1976. Actually a little before that when I read McGinniss' "The Selling of the President: 1968" in college. You know you're in trouble as a country when one of the most important pre-debate decisions by a candidate is tie color.

[Metaphysicist]

I love getting lectured by the left about not electing partisan politicians when their party is run by Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

I love it when conservatives compare the fringe of their side, which has consistently shat the bed on a national level, to the center of the other side. Obama is a two-time, nationally elected figure. I think it might be impossible for a politician to be more mainstream than him. You don't gotta like him, but comparing him to Santorum and co. is just your frustration getting the best of you.

Obama is loooooved by the far left about as much as he is by the far right. This claim that he's hyperpartisan just doesn't hold water; he ain't perfectly in the middle, but ain't anywhere near Santorum either. In my opinion, Pelosi and Reid are the mirror versions of Boehner and McConnell (same style of mainstream/corporate excrement, but different brands), but they aren't the intransigent, partisan fringe. If you wanna decry a lefty love child, you should really look at someone like Elizabeth Warren, and probably as far as Bernie Sanders. But I don't really care; you can call them whatever.


They passed one of the most partisan legislations of all time.

Eh... I mean, on a strict up and down vote, sure. But that's because we are in the age of everybody filibustering everything all the time. From day one Republicans basically decided this (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DM5Q GkOGZubQ&ei=_z5MUs6vM4vkrAfX7YHwBg&usg=AFQjCNH2b0Egf_FXugZnyZQ6-l1WhJBxKA&sig2=HXmIjltANw1c8jlNvtRqpQ&bvm=bv.53371865,d.bmk) was their strategy towards Obama, and they are really good at sticking to the party line. The actual history of the PPACA tended pretty much towards the middle over time. Why conservatives have wiped their memories of the history, debates, and compromises that led to the PPACA is beyond me. If the Dems had passed a public option, which was the original proposal, you might have a point, but because of the Republican filibuster they had to kowtow to the Liebermans and the Nelsons of the world, and we got this bastard, center-oriented, amalgam thing, which ended up pretty similar to a Heritage foundation proposal from the 90s.

YOU WERE ALL THERE. THIS EXISTS BECAUSE YOU* DIDN'T WANT A PUBLIC OPTION. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER THIS? WHY AM I PRETENDING TO BE YELLING BY WRITING IN ALL CAPS?

*I assume this thread, like every thread, is being read by Joe Lieberman.


A legislation that almost everyone hates and they had to spend the majority of the time convincing their own party to sign off on it.

Horse****. Ahem, sorry. I was still overexcited from pretending to yell.

(a) Your statement about "almost everyone" is way off. Like everything in this country these days, a bunch of people hate it and a bunch of people don't hate it. A majority-by-the-margin-of-error disapproves, last I looked. 53% vs 42%, respectively, per Pew (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/), and that's with respondents answering with about the accuracy of a coin flip about some of the key provisions, so I'm not really confident that the public has a rational opinion here.

Bear in mind that these "against" numbers always include those liberals who want the whole socialist shebang, so I'm really not seeing "almost everyone" feeling the Republicans on this.

(b) If by "their own party" you mean literally these people: Joe Lieberman who was an independent who killed the public option and Ben Nelson who LOL and held out for Nebraska subsidies.... then, sure. But that's like saying "the Republicans couldn't agree amongst themselves!!@!!!" just because Arlen Spector was being wishy washy. The Dems had the majority to pass the bill from day one but the filibuster forced them to bribe these people.


The only reason it made it through the supreme court as a constitutionally legal legislation was due to a technicality that they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down.

mmm... The constitution pretty much just technicalities. I mean, at least if that's what you are going to describe the "taxation power" as. As for "they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down" ...no. The Obama administration only got one day to speak on this point. For like one hour. That's it. The narrative you are describing is impossible. And really, the specific arguments aren't that important; the justices and their clerks usually reach their own conclusions based on their own research.

Frankly, this is a really bad talking point for conservatives, not only for the reasons above, but most especially because the Bush appointed Chief Justice wrote the decision. It's your dude, dudes! There's just no winning with you guys!


Pubs are trying to fix it, by only asking for a one year delay and they are the partisan ones.

How does that 'fix it'? And doesn't everyone and their mom know they just want to kill it altogether? Is the most disingenuous thing I've ever read on the internet?*

*that last question was directed as Lieberman, as I assume he is still reading


This is the only way pubs can negotiate with Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

Horse****. Ahem, well, that one was just good ol' fashioned disbelief comin' through.

Republicans control the House. The have a push button filibuster in the Senate. Literally everyday leading up to this moment they could have negotiated with the Dems by offering something to get the thing they want, but they have steadfastly refused to do that. Why? Because they don't actually think it is worth it to compromise. They don't want to give anything of value up. If the Republicans were ACTUALLY OFFERING something worthwhile, the Dems might listen. Because that's how negotiation works. But it's is basically current, right-wing house dogma that negotiation is anathema, and so their offer is "you give me what I want and I give you nothing or **** you." Color me shocking pink that this strategy didn't work for them.

And now to go back on everything I said, I will agree that the current Dem leadership in Congress is a big pile of garbage, so they can get all the blame you want.

[Metaphysicist]

I will if you or meta enlighten me on where I argued for the privatization of prisons.

I said that we should start trying to privatize functions deemed non-essential...as far as I know, all federal prisons are open and operating as usual despite the shutdown.

The point is that private prisons already exist and they are awful. It's an example of how privatizing government functions (which your post was championing) can be a terrible idea.

[The Chosen One]

Yeah. Anyone who thinks Obama is hyperpartisan is insane. Reid isn't even as liberal as Pelosi, he just happens to be majority leader. Pelosi may be far left in the House, but Reid isn't as liberal as someone like a Bernie or Warren or even a Ron Wyden.

Also, the notion that we have to meet halfway with Republicans on everything is also insane. If I'm looking at a left to right scale from -10 to +10 with 0 being the center of this country... I'd say mainstream Dems fall in the -3 or -4 on the left side, and the GOP currently falls on the +8,+9 on that scale. The middleground of -4 and +9 is going to be +2 or +3. Concessions would be to find something to meet back at 0, but that'd be too "liberal" for this currrent mainstream GOP.

[bravesnumberone]

So what do Obama and Warren/Pelosi have an actual complete disagreement on? What issues?

[57Brave]

igorvolsky ‏@igorvolsky 23m

Nice that @Reince will pay to keep the WWII memorial open. Too bad though that GOP's House budget cuts $11 billion from veterans spending

[weso1]

Yeah. Anyone who thinks Obama is hyperpartisan is insane. Reid isn't even as liberal as Pelosi, he just happens to be majority leader. Pelosi may be far left in the House, but Reid isn't as liberal as someone like a Bernie or Warren or even a Ron Wyden.

Also, the notion that we have to meet halfway with Republicans on everything is also insane. If I'm looking at a left to right scale from -10 to +10 with 0 being the center of this country... I'd say mainstream Dems fall in the -3 or -4 on the left side, and the GOP currently falls on the +8,+9 on that scale. The middleground of -4 and +9 is going to be +2 or +3. Concessions would be to find something to meet back at 0, but that'd be too "liberal" for this currrent mainstream GOP.

I'm just saying though that I'm sick of libs complaining about the politicians that conservatives elect or are in the highest positions of power, when in fact Boehner, Reid, McCain, Romney etc. are at the very least comparable to the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc.

[The Chosen One]

I'm just saying though that I'm sick of libs complaining about the politicians that conservatives elect or are in the highest positions of power, when in fact Boehner, Reid, McCain, Romney etc. are at the very least comparable to the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc.

I actually don't view Boehner as an extremist. He's always been slighty right of moderate. He's mainly speaker because of his seniority in the party than his ideology. Deep down, Boehner is the same mold of Republican as Romney or McCain. They all have to cater to a certain radical faction in their party to do what they want.

There is no such faction like that in the Dems. Dems are probably more united than GOP when it comes to voting. Boehner has to juggle the phonies like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Marsha Blackburn, and the Tea Partiers.

[weso1]

Eh... I mean, on a strict up and down vote, sure. But that's because we are in the age of everybody filibustering everything all the time. From day one Republicans basically decided this (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DM5Q GkOGZubQ&ei=_z5MUs6vM4vkrAfX7YHwBg&usg=AFQjCNH2b0Egf_FXugZnyZQ6-l1WhJBxKA&sig2=HXmIjltANw1c8jlNvtRqpQ&bvm=bv.53371865,d.bmk) was their strategy towards Obama, and they are really good at sticking to the party line. The actual history of the PPACA tended pretty much towards the middle over time. Why conservatives have wiped their memories of the history, debates, and compromises that led to the PPACA is beyond me. If the Dems had passed a public option, which was the original proposal, you might have a point, but because of the Republican filibuster they had to kowtow to the Liebermans and the Nelsons of the world, and we got this bastard, center-oriented, amalgam thing, which ended up pretty similar to a Heritage foundation proposal from the 90s.

YOU WERE ALL THERE. THIS EXISTS BECAUSE YOU* DIDN'T WANT A PUBLIC OPTION. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER THIS? WHY AM I PRETENDING TO BE YELLING BY WRITING IN ALL CAPS?

*I assume this thread, like every thread, is being read by Joe Lieberman.



Horse****. Ahem, sorry. I was still overexcited from pretending to yell.

(a) Your statement about "almost everyone" is way off. Like everything in this country these days, a bunch of people hate it and a bunch of people don't hate it. A majority-by-the-margin-of-error disapproves, last I looked. 53% vs 42%, respectively, per Pew (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/), and that's with respondents answering with about the accuracy of a coin flip about some of the key provisions, so I'm not really confident that the public has a rational opinion here.

Bear in mind that these "against" numbers always include those liberals who want the whole socialist shebang, so I'm really not seeing "almost everyone" feeling the Republicans on this.

(b) If by "their own party" you mean literally these people: Joe Lieberman who was an independent who killed the public option and Ben Nelson who LOL and held out for Nebraska subsidies.... then, sure. But that's like saying "the Republicans couldn't agree amongst themselves!!@!!!" just because Arlen Spector was being wishy washy. The Dems had the majority to pass the bill from day one but the filibuster forced them to bribe these people.



mmm... The constitution pretty much just technicalities. I mean, at least if that's what you are going to describe the "taxation power" as. As for "they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down" ...no. The Obama administration only got one day to speak on this point. For like one hour. That's it. The narrative you are describing is impossible. And really, the specific arguments aren't that important; the justices and their clerks usually reach their own conclusions based on their own research.

Frankly, this is a really bad talking point for conservatives, not only for the reasons above, but most especially because the Bush appointed Chief Justice wrote the decision. It's your dude, dudes! There's just no winning with you guys!



How does that 'fix it'? And doesn't everyone and their mom know they just want to kill it altogether? Is the most disingenuous thing I've ever read on the internet?*

*that last question was directed as Lieberman, as I assume he is still reading



Horse****. Ahem, well, that one was just good ol' fashioned disbelief comin' through.

Republicans control the House. The have a push button filibuster in the Senate. Literally everyday leading up to this moment they could have negotiated with the Dems by offering something to get the thing they want, but they have steadfastly refused to do that. Why? Because they don't actually think it is worth it to compromise. They don't want to give anything of value up. If the Republicans were ACTUALLY OFFERING something worthwhile, the Dems might listen. Because that's how negotiation works. But it's is basically current, right-wing house dogma that negotiation is anathema, and so their offer is "you give me what I want and I give you nothing or **** you." Color me shocking pink that this strategy didn't work for them.

And now to go back on everything I said, I will agree that the current Dem leadership in Congress is a big pile of garbage, so they can get all the blame you want.

Obama had to give up on the public option because he couldn't get enough blue dog dems in the house to back him up. That's what I'm talking about when I say they were fighting amongst their own party. Look, you can speculate all you want about why Obama struggled to even get the federal mandate through, but the facts are the facts. It was an extremely partisan vote. I'll let you speculate on the reasons while I just bathe in the facts. I never speculate.

Of course the pubs are offering something. They're offering him funding. They're witholding it because the dems aren't negotiating right now. This is something that has been done many times in the past by both parties. They just asked for a simple delay in the implementation of Obamacare. Reid is unwilling to go to the negotiation table on it. At the very least there are significant concerns about the Obamacare implementation. So what's so bad about a one year delay. Get the kinks worked out and then implement the horrible policy.

Let me ask you this question? If the Pubs are petty by doing this governmental shutdown thing, then is the President not being petty by refusing to consider bills that would partially restore nonnecessary governmental services? Is it petty of the president to allow as much pain as he can allow, like he did during the sequester? The truth is that both sides are playing politics here.

With all of that in mind... I think this is a pure political move to appease to the majority who don't like Obamacare. In the end I think it makes republican congress look bad as a whole, but it doesn't really matter. People vote for their representatives on an individual basis.

[weso1]

I actually don't view Boehner as an extremist. He's always been slighty right of moderate. He's mainly speaker because of his seniority in the party than his ideology. Deep down, Boehner is the same mold of Republican as Romney or McCain. They all have to cater to a certain radical faction in their party to do what they want.

There is no such faction like that in the Dems. Dems are probably more united than GOP when it comes to voting. Boehner has to juggle the phonies like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Marsha Blackburn, and the Tea Partiers.

The liberals have to appease to their base as well. It cuts both ways. I mean you have to be a pretty big homer not to see that. For Every moderate liberal there's a steaksauce.

[Julio3000]

I'm just saying though that I'm sick of libs complaining about the politicians that conservatives elect or are in the highest positions of power, when in fact Boehner, Reid, McCain, Romney etc. are at the very least comparable to the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc.

Boehner is a garden variety wheeler-dealer and corporate suckup . . . typical of the type that often rise to leadership positions in both parties. His caucus is a different story, though.

[The Chosen One]

The liberals have to appease to their base as well. It cuts both ways. I mean you have to be a pretty big homer not to see that. For Every moderate liberal there's a steaksauce.

Yeah the Insurance Mandate was far from what liberals wanted.

Liberals have wanted a single-payer system forever. Couldn't get that, so let's try public option. Nope, couldn't get that either, so had to settle for a plan the Heritage Foundation and Republican Party drew up 20 years ago.

That's concession and appeasement?

Even I as a liberal concede this insurance mandate is going to be more costly than single payer/public option, but it's better than the current system.

[Julio3000]

The liberals have to appease to their base as well. It cuts both ways. I mean you have to be a pretty big homer not to see that. For Every moderate liberal there's a steaksauce.

in the House, sure. Gerrymandered districts cut both ways. The republicans have been more successful winning the state legislatures recently, so they've carved out a few more on their side, but yes, of course there are lefties in congress, and of course they play to their bases.

You're still kind of sliding around the point, though. The far right is driving policy and strategy on the republican side. They have organization and access to money that has no analogue on the left. The far left has been shut out of D policymaking since, well, pretty much since before I was of voting age.

[The Chosen One]

Look at the Senators getting hte most attention in the Republican Party.

Senator Cruz
Senator Rand Paul
before that was Senator Rubio.

What do they all have in common? They're all Tea Party sweethearts.

The other long time Republican Senators who 10 years ago would be considered far right and are now actually moderate because of how far the scale has been skewed, all they have to do is just vote NO to keep their job safe and the Tea Party happy.

McCain is just trying to remain relevant, by pretending to be an elder statesman/maverick and telling Cruz and others to chill out, but he votes the same way they do because he really has no more political clout. Everybody just looks at him as a former Presidential Candidate, that's been a senator a very long time. He doesn't have the sway Ted Kennedy did.

Corker is same as McCain. Been here a while, would have been considered a far right winger in the 90's, but now is considered one of the Senators that Obama may be able to talk to. O'Reilly was considered the Far right TV host for a long time, until Glenn Beck and Limbaugh upstaged him. Now O'Reilly looks like a sane center of right Republican compared to those two.

Do Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and guys like Ron Wyden and Boxer/Feinstein get as much attention as their Republican counter parts?

Warren has her fight with the banks.
Bernie has his fight with income inequality and social security/medicare.
Feinstein has her fight with guns.

But nobody takes them serious on fiscal issues like everyone on the right takes Paul and Cruz seriously.

[cajunrevenge]

Yeah...

If Santorum, Perry, or Newt would've been nominated over Romney, we're probably looking at one of the biggest electoral blowouts since Reagan-Dukakis.

Romney and McCain were the best possible candidates to go up against Obama both times, because both are considered moderates that aren't looney tunes. Unfortunately both didn't have the balls to stand up to the Tea Party and that's why neither got elected. I mean, McCain chose Palin that was his writing on the wall, and of course the Paul Ryan move, while better than Palin was Romney's bone to the TP.

All of those you mentioned would have lost to Obama. The only candidate that could have won was Ron Paul. I dont know that anyone would have beaten Obama in 08 because Bush left such a bad taste in peoples mouths about republicans. Flat out the Republican party chose another Obama term over a Ron Paul presidency. Anyone who thought Romney would win was an idiot or in denial. Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot not embracing the libertarian revolution going on in their party. Their whole strategy is to wait until people get sick of democrats again and are just trying to obstruct Obama as much as possible until that day comes. They should just give Obama everything he wants and just sit back and say "see, we told you so, maybe dont vote for a liberal next time". Obstructing Obama just gives him an excuse to use.

And if your on the left dont pretend you know which candidate is best for the right. Any candidate you think acceptable is probably not someone anyone on the right wants to vote for. It gets the same reaction that telling you the left should nominate Joseph Lieberman would get from you.

[The Chosen One]

All it would take for Ron Paul to lose, would be for Obama to mention that Paul wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

People on the left pick out who's more capable of winning a general on the right, because that's the person who's more moderate and would have the best chance of winning a battleground state.

No Republican is going to win California, so you need a moderate Republican that can battle for the battleground states. If Paul's platform on social security, and medicare/medicaid came known in states like Florida, Ohio.... that's not even a question.

Paul gets blown out in the general vs. Obama.

[The Chosen One]

The idea that Paul could defeat Obama running on his political stances, is sillier than the guy that posted a picture of the electoral map of the country via district that shows there's more square mileage of red on the map than blue, when blue is where all the densely populated areas are.

[sturg33]

Paul would have gotten the "anybody but Obama vote" (95% of the republican party)

He would have gotten the anti-war independents

He would have gotten the anti-war/civil liberty democracts

He would have gotten A LOT of the young vote

Romney only got the first .

[The Chosen One]

Paul would have gotten the "anybody but Obama vote" (95% of the republican party)

He would have gotten the anti-war independents

He would have gotten the anti-war/civil liberty democracts

He would have gotten A LOT of the young vote

Romney only got the first .

Anti-War and Civil Liberty agendas won't matter when you stack them up against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Not to mention a big reason Romney lost was because of the latino vote... that alone would have Paul losing.

The only youth vote he would've gotten would be for legalizing weed (as sad as it makes me to admit that about my generation's voting priorities), and I'm sure Obama's team would've jumped all over that if not agreed to legalize it as well to counter that.


Let's be real here, we've been in 2 wars for 10 years, still stuck in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, potentially are going in Syria, fear of going to war with NK for a while. Our civil liberties have been attacked for 10+ years to where most Americans don't really even notice they're not there.

You tell your average middle class family if they have to choose between the thought of abolishing social security, medicare, unemployment benefits and sending our troops out of the middle east/No more Patriot Act, I think we know which one gets picked 99% of the time.

[The Chosen One]

Also, the fact Obama would be FOR *** marriage, when Paul would be only allowing states to decide (which every Southern State would reject), the youth vote there would favor Obama.

Obama ran on anti-war/civil liberties, but that isn't what got him elected. It was economy and $$$ issues.

Paul telling everyone, we should cut more taxes, would dig him in a deeper hole.

Let's not forget, Paul would be for shrinking the military (which I'm actually in favor of), and as we all know that's a huge voting block for the Republican Party. You can't get Senators and Congressman in districts with military bases to go along with Paul's vision of gutting the military. All Obama would have to do is speak on his record of defense and play up to military families and Paul loses.

[sturg33]

Anti-War and Civil Liberty agendas won't matter when you stack them up against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Not to mention a big reason Romney lost was because of the latino vote... that alone would have Paul losing.

The only youth vote he would've gotten would be for legalizing weed (as sad as it makes me to admit that about my generation's voting priorities), and I'm sure Obama's team would've jumped all over that if not agreed to legalize it as well to counter that.


Let's be real here, we've been in 2 wars for 10 years, still stuck in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, potentially are going in Syria, fear of going to war with NK for a while. Our civil liberties have been attacked for 10+ years to where most Americans don't really even notice they're not there.

You tell your average middle class family if they have to choose between the thought of abolishing social security, medicare, unemployment benefits and sending our troops out of the middle east/No more Patriot Act, I think we know which one gets picked 99% of the time.


All in the messaging.

For example, if Mitt Romney went on a debate stage and said "This President signed a bill that allows the US military to indefinitely detain ANY US citizen for ANY reason, with no trial to that citizen" I believe he would have won the election.

But Mitt Romney agreed with NDAA

ACA was pretty unpopular - yet the Republicans put up the man who implemented it first.

Obama won in 2008 bc of his opposition to the war, unbalanced budget, and attacks to civil liberties. But Ron Paul was the only Republican who could have made an argument against him in 2012

If Ron Paul discussed how we are broke, can't afford wars, the wars on drugs, etc etc, that message resonates.

And Ron Paul laid out his plans for SS, did you not see it? He basically said that congress is constutionally forced to pay the benefits it has promised, but he would offer an opt out for anyone under 25 years old - and eventually the program would have died on its own, but voluntarily.

In 2008, I thought Ron Paul was crazy because... everyone told me he was crazy. When I actually listened to what he said, I realized he was brilliant

[sturg33]

Also, the fact Obama would be FOR *** marriage, when Paul would be only allowing states to decide (which every Southern State would reject), the youth vote there would favor Obama.

Obama ran on anti-war/civil liberties, but that isn't what got him elected. It was economy and $$$ issues.

Paul telling everyone, we should cut more taxes, would dig him in a deeper hole.

Let's not forget, Paul would be for shrinking the military (which I'm actually in favor of), and as we all know that's a huge voting block for the Republican Party. You can't get Senators and Congressman in districts with military bases to go along with Paul's vision of gutting the military. All Obama would have to do is speak on his record of defense and play up to military families and Paul loses.

Paul is not in favor of *** marriage because he doesn't care. In his view, anyone who wants to marry someone else should be allowed to, and that we don't need a law to give us permission. I think that is a very strong argument FOR the cause.

Yeah, Obama ran on economy and we're still in the ****ter. Paul was the only Republican who had a track record of doing what he says.

Yes, Paul telling everyone they should be able to keep more of their money will really get him in trouble

Yes, he is in favor of shrinking defense spending. But I never met a republican who said they would not vote for Paul against Obama. Yeah, they thought he was crazy bc of foreign policy - but their pea sized brains told them that "he's not Obama" so they would have voted for him anyways

[The Chosen One]

All in the messaging.

For example, if Mitt Romney went on a debate stage and said "This President signed a bill that allows the US military to indefinitely detain ANY US citizen for ANY reason, with no trial to that citizen" I believe he would have won the election.

But Mitt Romney agreed with NDAA

ACA was pretty unpopular - yet the Republicans put up the man who implemented it first.

Obama won in 2008 bc of his opposition to the war, unbalanced budget, and attacks to civil liberties. But Ron Paul was the only Republican who could have made an argument against him in 2012

If Ron Paul discussed how we are broke, can't afford wars, the wars on drugs, etc etc, that message resonates.

And Ron Paul laid out his plans for SS, did you not see it? He basically said that congress is constutionally forced to pay the benefits it has promised, but he would offer an opt out for anyone under 25 years old - and eventually the program would have died on its own, but voluntarily.

In 2008, I thought Ron Paul was crazy because... everyone told me he was crazy. When I actually listened to what he said, I realized he was brilliant

Perhaps the ACA isn't as unpopular as the Republican Party would have you believe...

Goes back to the whole which one do you dislike more, Obamacare or ACA?

LOL Obama won in 2008 because of his views on habeus corpus, patriot act, and opposition to war? Absolutely not. The economy crashed 2 months before the election, and the country did NOT want McCain in because they viewed him as Bush 3. There was no way any Republican was going to win the election in 2008. Country was tired of Republicans by 2008, the 2006 historic landslide mid-term elections were just the beginning. The fact of the matter is, the economy was the major issue on election day 2008, not civil liberties or anti-war sentiments. The banks collapsed just a few weeks before, and the economy is what every middle class person was worried about and they felt the Republicans had their time and blew it.

I actually liked Ron Paul, until I realized that most of his views were asinine, crazy, and unrealistic.

[The Chosen One]

Paul is not in favor of *** marriage because he doesn't care. In his view, anyone who wants to marry someone else should be allowed to, and that we don't need a law to give us permission. I think that is a very strong argument FOR the cause.



That doesn't mean he's for the cause, it just means he doesn't care.

Youth would vote for someone who says they're FOR IT and want to legalize it, not someone who says "I don't mind nor care if it does or doesn't get passed." Leaving it up to the states means you want to deflect responsibility to someone else instead of owning up to it, and that's playing chance because it's likely it won't get passed in many states.

Just because you look the other way on something, doesn't mean you're immune to the consequences.

And you can't just say regular republicans would've voted for Paul just because he's not Obama. Assuming Paul wins the nomination by June or July like Romney did, that gives Obama's team 4 months to tear down Paul's hype. If we are the two party system and country of choosing between lesser of two evils, military families are gonna vote for the guy who wants to continue funding the military, as opposed to the guy wanting to shrink the military.

[weso1]

in the House, sure. Gerrymandered districts cut both ways. The republicans have been more successful winning the state legislatures recently, so they've carved out a few more on their side, but yes, of course there are lefties in congress, and of course they play to their bases.

You're still kind of sliding around the point, though. The far right is driving policy and strategy on the republican side. They have organization and access to money that has no analogue on the left. The far left has been shut out of D policymaking since, well, pretty much since before I was of voting age.

What are you considering to be far left? Communism? What are you considering to be far right? To me far right is anarchy. I guess you are saying that libertarianism is far right? I don't really think that's taken off like maybe you think it has? I don't think wanting to cut tax rates by 5% at the highest progressive rate is far right. I don't think being against national healthcare is far right. I don't think being against *** marriage is far right. I don't think being against abortion except in cases of rape and incest is a far right position. So I guess I need to understand what your definition is.

I mean... Rand and Cruz have gotten a lot of support lately, but a lot of that is because of the filibustering thing. They're doing well in Iowa, but Iowa is maybe the furthest right state.

This is a party whose base just elected Romney.

[goldfly]

far left is communist

far right is fascism

[sturg33]

That doesn't mean he's for the cause, it just means he doesn't care.

Youth would vote for someone who says they're FOR IT and want to legalize it, not someone who says "I don't mind nor care if it does or doesn't get passed." Leaving it up to the states means you want to deflect responsibility to someone else instead of owning up to it, and that's playing chance because it's likely it won't get passed in many states.

Just because you look the other way on something, doesn't mean you're immune to the consequences.

And you can't just say regular republicans would've voted for Paul just because he's not Obama. Assuming Paul wins the nomination by June or July like Romney did, that gives Obama's team 4 months to tear down Paul's hype. If we are the two party system and country of choosing between lesser of two evils, military families are gonna vote for the guy who wants to continue funding the military, as opposed to the guy wanting to shrink the military.

I don't think you understand Paul's position at all.

He doesn't believe the government has ANY say in marriage, thus ***s would be allowed to be married in any circumstance. However, if government INSISTS on being involved, then do it at the state level, like the constitution demands.

[goldfly]

thus ***s would be allowed to be married in any circumstance..

uh, what?

guess those racist newsletters are rubbing off on ya if that censored word is what i think it is

[sturg33]

uh, what?

guess those racist newsletters are rubbing off on ya if that censored word is what i think it is

??

g.a.y.s we're talking about *** marriage. am i not being politically correct enough for you?

[goldfly]

??

g.a.y.s we're talking about *** marriage. am i not being politically correct enough for you?

this is why censorship is dumb on the internet for words 99% for the time

didn't know g.ay was censored

i was guessing it was f.ag

carry on

[Julio3000]

What are you considering to be far left? Communism? What are you considering to be far right? To me far right is anarchy. I guess you are saying that libertarianism is far right? I don't really think that's taken off like maybe you think it has? I don't think wanting to cut tax rates by 5% at the highest progressive rate is far right. I don't think being against national healthcare is far right. I don't think being against *** marriage is far right. I don't think being against abortion except in cases of rape and incest is a far right position. So I guess I need to understand what your definition is.

I mean... Rand and Cruz have gotten a lot of support lately, but a lot of that is because of the filibustering thing. They're doing well in Iowa, but Iowa is maybe the furthest right state.

This is a party whose base just elected Romney.

They did not nominate Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. They nominated Romney after he made a public show of repudiating his former moderate positions and adopting party orthodoxy.

Iowa is maybe the furthest right state? Since when?

Far right is anarchy and far left is Obama? Sweet Jesus.

How about comparing the conservative Republican president who created the EPA with the mainstream republican position that it should be abolished?

How about comparing the two Republican presidents in the 80s who raised taxes when economic conditions warranted it with a generation of Republican elected officials who sign a pledge never to vote for a tax increase?

How about a party that, unlike other parties of the right in the western world, denies anthropogenic climate change? ****, there's a pretty strong constituency that still denies evolution.

How about a party whose mainstream presidential candidates supported not a 5% cut in the top marginal rate, but cutting by half or a third the rate that the richest Americans pay (post-Bush), and eliminating taxes on investment income?

Come on, man. I've got plenty more.

[bravesnumberone]

They did not nominate Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. They nominated Romney after he made a public show of repudiating his former moderate positions and adopting party orthodoxy.

Iowa is maybe the furthest right state? Since when?

Far right is anarchy and far left is Obama? Sweet Jesus.

How about comparing the conservative Republican president who created the EPA with the mainstream republican position that it should be abolished?

How about comparing the two Republican presidents in the 80s who raised taxes when economic conditions warranted it with a generation of Republican elected officials who sign a pledge never to vote for a tax increase?

How about a party that, unlike other parties of the right in the western world, denies anthropogenic climate change? ****, there's a pretty strong constituency that still denies evolution.

How about a party whose mainstream presidential candidates supported not a 5% cut in the top marginal rate, but cutting by half or a third the rate that the richest Americans pay (post-Bush), and eliminating taxes on investment income?

Come on, man. I've got plenty more.

I ain't no monkey. :icwudt:

You're right about Romney. I think his inconsistency hurt him as much as anything. It's a bit hard to run effectively when the other side can paint you as a flip-flopper, and justifiably so. Just ask John Kerry. Obama and the Dems used the "We crafted the ACA after Romney's system in Massachusetts" as well as Bush and the Republicans did "I actually voted for the War in Iraq before I voted against it."

They also were able to scare people into thinking Romney would take all the poor people's money, much like Bush's people beat down the doors in Ohio in 2004 saying "We ain't gonna be a Christian nation no more if Bush don't win. Don't let these g.a.y.s get married!"

And I'll own up to being selfish when it comes to taxes. I don't get much taken out in taxes anyway with my puny salary, but if they take any more, I'm gonna slap someone.

[weso1]

When did I ever say that the far left was Obama itt? I don't believe Obama is a communist. Although I guess he could be in secret. I've said before that I don't even think Obama is a socialist. I don't think wanting to limit the power of the EPA is a far right issue...not sure there's ever been a serious push to abolish it. I mean even if only 30% of the population agree with limiting the EPA then that's still a pretty good chunk of people. You're talking about presidential candidates who wound up getting annihilated by their moderate peer who always had moderate policies and had zero personality. Every politician says they aren't going to raise taxes. So not sure how that fits into your agenda to make republicans appear far right when they aren't. Look, we can go through all these issues one by one on both sides, but it seems incredibly boring and pointless.

I'd rather just stick with what the republican party actually does rather than what they say in polls. Fact is that they're voting for the moderate folks on a national stage. Look at what Ryan, Christie and Rubio have been doing lately prerepublican nomination. They are moving toward the middle, each in their own way. The true far right guys like Paul Johnson are still ignored for the most part just like they are ignored on the left. In this next election you'll see that another moderate will be elected in the primary.

Truth be told when a republican becomes president again you'll see the dems try to block everything and all of a sudden they'll become the out of touch "far left" party. It all goes in cycles.

[goldfly]

the math for a republican president

doesn't add up any time soon


but the democrats don't have the balls to do what republicans pull in this country

[bravesnumberone]

Yeah the democrats don't manipulate elections at all.

[Metaphysicist]

It was an extremely partisan vote.

Well, you're moving the goalposts a bit there. I wasn't arguing that. I explicitly agreed the vote itself was partisan, in fact. Your original statement was that the legislation was partisan, not just the vote. The legislation itself end up much closer to the center than the original Obama proposal.

And the public option was dropped because of Lieberman; I wouldn't call him a blue dog; he's always been more of a basset hound (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01051/health-graphics-20_1051464a.jpg).


Of course the pubs are offering something. They're offering him funding. They're witholding it because the dems aren't negotiating right now. This is something that has been done many times in the past by both parties.

This has been done once in the past 23 years; it happened fairly frequently after the idea was invented in the late 70s, but by the late 80s it the popularity of the tactic had waned, and the 1995 one should have cemented that opinion among rational people that it was a bad idea.


They just asked for a simple delay in the implementation of Obamacare. Reid is unwilling to go to the negotiation table on it. At the very least there are significant concerns about the Obamacare implementation. So what's so bad about a one year delay. Get the kinks worked out and then implement the horrible policy.

All they are asking is that on the day the program starts, you actually shut it all down so they can have another year to figure out someway to destroy it. Why that does sound reasonable! It's so simple!

"Kinks"? Are you ****ting me? The only "kink" they want to fix is that it exists at all. There is no middle ground to negotiate towards. What are these mythical fixes that will suddenly make them approve of Obamacare?


Let me ask you this question? If the Pubs are petty by doing this governmental shutdown thing, then is the President not being petty by refusing to consider bills that would partially restore nonnecessary governmental services? Is it petty of the president to allow as much pain as he can allow, like he did during the sequester? The truth is that both sides are playing politics here.

I mean, I guess? Maybe? It's certainly a political move, but it's not really petty (those aren't synonyms) the to same degree, in my opinion. The Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Why would anyone in his shoes let them do that? If he let's them off the hook for their actions, they are just going to do it again.


With all of that in mind... I think this is a pure political move to appease to the majority who don't like Obamacare.

Which is a ****ty reason to shutdown the government. At least Newt thought he would win.

[Metaphysicist]

The liberals have to appease to their base as well. It cuts both ways. I mean you have to be a pretty big homer not to see that. For Every moderate liberal there's a steaksauce.

Not really. Those guys are gonna vote for the Dem no matter what; they are so scarred and guilty about Nader and Bush. Plus, they will turn out, because unlike right wing extremists they actually like government.

I mean, just look at your example. Is there any chance at SteakSauce doesn't vote for Hillary or whatever moderate Dem gets nominated? On the other hand, half this board's conservatives want to vote for Ron Paul.

[weso1]

I mean, I guess? Maybe? It's certainly a political move, but it's not really petty (those aren't synonyms) the to same degree, in my opinion. The Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Why would anyone in his shoes let them do that? If he let's them off the hook for their actions, they are just going to do it again.

Which is a ****ty reason to shutdown the government.

That is certainly the party line yes... well stated.

So answer this question then. Why do you hate kids who have cancer and want them to die?

[weso1]

Not really. Those guys are gonna vote for the Dem no matter what; they are so scarred and guilty about Nader and Bush. Plus, they will turn out, because unlike right wing extremists they actually like government.

I mean, just look at your example. Is there any chance at SteakSauce doesn't vote for Hillary or whatever moderate Dem gets nominated? On the other hand, half this board's conservatives want to vote for Ron Paul.

Chopcountry.com is a good barometer.

[Metaphysicist]

It was your example...

[weso1]

Which is a ****ty reason to shutdown the government.

Yeah, I think it is too. But I think the impacts of it are being largely overstated and dems are doing whatever they can to make the impacts as painful as possible. So both sides are playing a rather ****ty game of politics here. With that in mind I think the pubs in congress have gone too far on this one.

[Metaphysicist]

So answer this question then. Why do you hate kids who have cancer and want them to die?

More free healthcare for the rest of us!

[Metaphysicist]

By the way, this is one of the funniest things I've read on the internet in the past 10 minutes (link) (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-house-conservatives-obamacare-97698.html):


On shutdown Day One, conservatives — many of whom were elected in the 2010 tea party wave — didn’t see an endgame the defunds Obamacare, nor a way to delay the individual mandate. They ignored questions about what victory really meant at this point.

“It’s not about us or them — this is about America,” insisted Georgia Rep. Austin Scott (R), when the question was put to him. Asked again, Scott repeated the exact same answer. Asked a third time, Scott lowered his voice, “It’s not about Obamacare, it’s about America.”

He wasn’t alone in expressing that the pathway forward isn’t up for discussion.

Georgia GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey, also from Georgia, simply read talking points, including boiling the path forward down to three Twitter hashtags.

[57Brave]

A Phil Gingrey sighting. Well done

[50PoundHead]

Paul would have gotten the "anybody but Obama vote" (95% of the republican party)

He would have gotten the anti-war independents

He would have gotten the anti-war/civil liberty democracts

He would have gotten A LOT of the young vote

Romney only got the first .

You can't prove the negative and I get your energy and slant, but if Romney couldn't beat Obama in this economy, I don't think Paul--whose policy initiatives are more stark--would have fared as well. The "anybody but Obama" group would likely have dwindled (or not shown up at the polls) with a Paul candidacy. A lot of those folks aren't anti-government in the same vein as Ron Paul. A lot of soccer moms in that group and while they don't cotton to a lot of the Obama agenda, they want (among other things) good schools, safe streets, and predictability. They have concerns over the size and scope of government, but my guess is Obama and company could have scared the living pants off a lot of these folks. The election was all about the economy and I just think Paul's solutions were too radical to give comfort to a populace that was very security-driven.

I doubt there are that many folks in any of the other groups you mention that would have appreciably put a dent in Obama's armor. The folks over at The Nation despise Ron Paul and if there's a stronger contingent of anti-war/civil liberty Democrats anyplace other than there, I don't know where they'd be. I don't think the results would have exactly been Nixon/McGovern because the South is so solidly Republican now that most of those states would have gone Republican if a robot were the Republican candidate (Wait a minute. The Republicans did nominate a robot.), but I believe Obama would have won more comfortably. I can't prove that, but neither can you prove that Paul would have won or done better than Romney. It's one thing to have energy, but I've run campaigns and it takes more than a bunch of excited people bouncing around to win an election. Obama's ground game is simply phenomenal. It is well-funded, well-oiled, and extremely organized. There is very little wasted energy and the concern that those folks were going to sit it out due to Obama's first term was ill-founded.

All this said, I do believe that the movement devoted to Ron Paul (and the succession that will follow him, whomever that may be) will gain in strength. There was a great article in Harper's a few months back and I agree there are a ton of young voters who are organizing through the Liberty Movement and that bloc will likely grow to be more influential. But it takes organization to win and in 2012, I don't think the organization was there.

In response to the "Iowa comment," Iowa, like a bunch of Midwestern states with strong populist roots, still has a caucus system to determine delegate allocation. Paul and Santorum did better in those states than in primary states because you need to have a motivated group willing to turn off the television (or skip Muffy's dance class or Biff's hockey practice) on a Tuesday night and head down to the local junior high school and sit for a couple of hours and talk about resolutions, issues, and candidates and figure out who to send up to the next level (legislative district, congressional district, or state) as delegates. Paul had this with his following and my guess is Santorum's followers hit the windshields with flyers in every Catholic church parking lot in caucus states to generate interest (and let's remember that Santorum won in Iowa, not Paul).

I think the Paul/Santorum dichotomy is going to be the issue Republicans have to resolve before 2016. While Paul and his followers are largely, but not exclusively, anti-abortion, they don't "wear" the issue in the same way that Santorum does and there is a considerable segment of the Republican party which is all about what they term "traditional family values." I think the younger generation of Paul-ites (Rand Paul, Rubio, Ted Cruz) try to keep a foot on both rails, but unless there's a workable fusion of those elements, I see the Republicans scuffling for a bit on the national level. Not to mention if a fusion of these two tribes becomes the base of the Republican Party, where does that leave the more standard fare featuring guys like Chris Christie?

[The Chosen One]

We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."-- Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)

[bravesnumberone]

50 is right on it. Obama's ground orgainzation is among the best there's ever been. Bush had a strong ground game in 2004 as well.

I see the "Paul" movement gaining in strength too, but there will have to be at least some uniting on issues. The anti-tax and anti-war people and those who oppose things like the Patriot Act as their main issue that have flocked to the Pauls and Gary Johnsons don't always agree on a lot of things. The Bush and Obama folks were generally more united on just about everything.

I understand the social conservatives' perspective on most things, but I really believe the majority of people are FAR more concerned with two things: How's my checkbook going to be looking, and are we safe?

[BedellBrave]

Carry on (http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/).

[50PoundHead]

50 is right on it. Obama's ground orgainzation is among the best there's ever been. Bush had a strong ground game in 2004 as well.

I see the "Paul" movement gaining in strength too, but there will have to be at least some uniting on issues. The anti-tax and anti-war people and those who oppose things like the Patriot Act as their main issue that have flocked to the Pauls and Gary Johnsons don't always agree on a lot of things. The Bush and Obama folks were generally more united on just about everything.

I understand the social conservatives' perspective on most things, but I really believe the majority of people are FAR more concerned with two things: How's my checkbook going to be looking, and are we safe?

Very true. It's about getting bodies to the polls.

[sturg33]

You can't prove the negative and I get your energy and slant, but if Romney couldn't beat Obama in this economy, I don't think Paul--whose policy initiatives are more stark--would have fared as well. The "anybody but Obama" group would likely have dwindled (or not shown up at the polls) with a Paul candidacy. A lot of those folks aren't anti-government in the same vein as Ron Paul. A lot of soccer moms in that group and while they don't cotton to a lot of the Obama agenda, they want (among other things) good schools, safe streets, and predictability. They have concerns over the size and scope of government, but my guess is Obama and company could have scared the living pants off a lot of these folks. The election was all about the economy and I just think Paul's solutions were too radical to give comfort to a populace that was very security-driven.

I doubt there are that many folks in any of the other groups you mention that would have appreciably put a dent in Obama's armor. The folks over at The Nation despise Ron Paul and if there's a stronger contingent of anti-war/civil liberty Democrats anyplace other than there, I don't know where they'd be. I don't think the results would have exactly been Nixon/McGovern because the South is so solidly Republican now that most of those states would have gone Republican if a robot were the Republican candidate (Wait a minute. The Republicans did nominate a robot.), but I believe Obama would have won more comfortably. I can't prove that, but neither can you prove that Paul would have won or done better than Romney. It's one thing to have energy, but I've run campaigns and it takes more than a bunch of excited people bouncing around to win an election. Obama's ground game is simply phenomenal. It is well-funded, well-oiled, and extremely organized. There is very little wasted energy and the concern that those folks were going to sit it out due to Obama's first term was ill-founded.

All this said, I do believe that the movement devoted to Ron Paul (and the succession that will follow him, whomever that may be) will gain in strength. There was a great article in Harper's a few months back and I agree there are a ton of young voters who are organizing through the Liberty Movement and that bloc will likely grow to be more influential. But it takes organization to win and in 2012, I don't think the organization was there.

In response to the "Iowa comment," Iowa, like a bunch of Midwestern states with strong populist roots, still has a caucus system to determine delegate allocation. Paul and Santorum did better in those states than in primary states because you need to have a motivated group willing to turn off the television (or skip Muffy's dance class or Biff's hockey practice) on a Tuesday night and head down to the local junior high school and sit for a couple of hours and talk about resolutions, issues, and candidates and figure out who to send up to the next level (legislative district, congressional district, or state) as delegates. Paul had this with his following and my guess is Santorum's followers hit the windshields with flyers in every Catholic church parking lot in caucus states to generate interest (and let's remember that Santorum won in Iowa, not Paul).

I think the Paul/Santorum dichotomy is going to be the issue Republicans have to resolve before 2016. While Paul and his followers are largely, but not exclusively, anti-abortion, they don't "wear" the issue in the same way that Santorum does and there is a considerable segment of the Republican party which is all about what they term "traditional family values." I think the younger generation of Paul-ites (Rand Paul, Rubio, Ted Cruz) try to keep a foot on both rails, but unless there's a workable fusion of those elements, I see the Republicans scuffling for a bit on the national level. Not to mention if a fusion of these two tribes becomes the base of the Republican Party, where does that leave the more standard fare featuring guys like Chris Christie?

Thanks for the well thought post... will respond later when I have more time

[weso1]

It was your example...

I just like using the word barometer.

[zitothebrave]

I just like using the word barometer.

Barometer makes weso's dew point rise

[The Chosen One]

LOL at Congressman Neugebauer (R-Tex).

Absolutely embarassing. He berated a park ranger at one of the memorials who's working for free, because she allowed WW2 Veterans to enter, but not the general public. He said she and her colleagues should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5K7wVb6y_U

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/10/03/randy_neugebauer_park_ranger_video_flag_wearing_go p_congressman_berates.html

LMAO

[The Chosen One]

Sturg or anyone for future reference, if you're going to quote a post that is very long with plenty of paragraphs like 50's, make sure to use the spoiler tag inside the quote so it doesn't stretch the page extra farther down. :Bunchie1:

[The Chosen One]

McConnell and Paul have no idea the mic is on and the camera is running, basically leak the strategy the GOP has been using the last 4 years. Publicly say you want to compromise and find common ground, but in reality don't do anything and eventually people will blame the other side as equally bad as you.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-government-shutdown-97795.html


I remember a few years ago a few former GOP aides that worked for Bush 1,2, Reagan and some other 90's Republicans said that the party has become so radical now by design that if they just refuse to compromise and be extremely partisan that eventually people will just give up any faith that anything will get done to the point where they'll just naturally blame both sides for not doing anything. It's a brilliant strategy when you think about it. It takes two sides to make a deal. If you don't negotiate or compromise on anything, eventually people will believe the other side is just as much as fault no matter how ridiculous your own demands are.

[zitothebrave]

Paul cannot be that stupid, there has to be a reason he went to a mic'd and in front of camera McConnell. Are they trying to torpedo the house reps? Has to be a reason they're doing it cause it can't be stupidity, just can't.

[57Brave]

It's about time Politico recognizes what many have been reporting since January 2009.

The first give away was McConnell declaring - I paraphrase _"our main goal is to be sure Obama is a one term President"
The second might have been The Williamsburg Accord.

Welcome to Friday Politico --

[The Chosen One]

Paul cannot be that stupid, there has to be a reason he went to a mic'd and in front of camera McConnell. Are they trying to torpedo the house reps? Has to be a reason they're doing it cause it can't be stupidity, just can't.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1683333/boehner-crying-o.gif

[weso1]

McConnell and Paul have no idea the mic is on and the camera is running, basically leak the strategy the GOP has been using the last 4 years. Publicly say you want to compromise and find common ground, but in reality don't do anything and eventually people will blame the other side as equally bad as you.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-government-shutdown-97795.html


I remember a few years ago a few former GOP aides that worked for Bush 1,2, Reagan and some other 90's Republicans said that the party has become so radical now by design that if they just refuse to compromise and be extremely partisan that eventually people will just give up any faith that anything will get done to the point where they'll just naturally blame both sides for not doing anything. It's a brilliant strategy when you think about it. It takes two sides to make a deal. If you don't negotiate or compromise on anything, eventually people will believe the other side is just as much as fault no matter how ridiculous your own demands are.

Did you read what they said? I didn't get that out of what they said. They just said it was dumb for the president and democrats to keep saying that they weren't going to negotiate. I mean... the dems are publically saying they won't negotiate and you aren't grumping about them. Talk about intense homerism.

[The Chosen One]

Did you read what they said? I didn't get that out of what they said. They just said it was dumb for the president and democrats to keep saying that they weren't going to negotiate. I mean... the dems are publically saying they won't negotiate and you aren't grumping about them. Talk about intense homerism.

I didn't read what they said, I listened to what they said.

What was transcribed on the article when read is different from the tone in which you listen to them.

[The Chosen One]

And the Dems not willing to negotiate is the right move.

Never has one party ever been this extreme in shutting down the government in an attempt to repeal duly-passed legislation.

You shouldn't compromise just because the other team has some severe sour grapes. GOP could've brought these discussions up months ago, but they waited until the game clock expired because they knew they'd have more leverage.

At least Boehner has enough balls to admit he isn't going to let us default.

[weso1]

I didn't read what they said, I listened to what they said.

What was transcribed on the article when read is different from the tone in which you listen to them.

I listened too and I guess I don't have a masters in tone interpretation so I guess I can't speak on that. It's hilarious that you are grumping based on pure speculation that the reps aren't negotiating when the dems are publically stating that they won't negotiate.

[weso1]

And the Dems not willing to negotiate is the right move.

Never has one party ever been this extreme in shutting down the government in an attempt to repeal duly-passed legislation.

You shouldn't compromise just because the other team has some severe sour grapes. GOP could've brought these discussions up months ago, but they waited until the game clock expired because they knew they'd have more leverage.

At least Boehner has enough balls to admit he isn't going to let us default.

So when the dems don't compromise it's the right move and when the reps don't it's sour grapes. Sounds like a fair analysis.

[weso1]

Let's be clear. Both parties actually are negotiating right now. They will reach an agreement before the debt ceiling deadline. Paul is just bringing up the media strategy between the 2 parties. The dems are saying they won't negotiate even though they are. And reps are saying they are more than willing to negotiate. Paul is just stating that he thinks the dem strategy is stupid and the rep strategy is the winning one.

Time will tell if Paul is right on that.

[The Chosen One]

So when the dems don't compromise it's the right move and when the reps don't it's sour grapes. Sounds like a fair analysis.

Dems have no reason to compromise. The Republicans are holding our government hostage right now over a bill that was signed into law 3 years ago.

Healthcare law has NOTHING to do with passing a CR bill. Well Boehner won't even put a CR bill up to vote.

In this instance, it's the right move for the Dems not to negotiate. They have no reason to because the Republicans are leveraging a proxy war.

[The Chosen One]

Let's be clear. Both parties actually are negotiating right now. They will reach an agreement before the debt ceiling deadline. Paul is just bringing up the media strategy between the 2 parties. The dems are saying they won't negotiate even though they are. And reps are saying they are more than willing to negotiate. Paul is just stating that he thinks the dem strategy is stupid and the rep strategy is the winning one.

Time will tell if Paul is right on that.

Not necessarily.

The Dems don't need to negotiate on anything. There's already a bunch of Republicans who think this has dragged out too long already and are ready to vote and pass a CR bill if Boehner brings it up to vote. Peter King already said there's a few dozen of House Republicans ready to vote with Democrats on a CR bill if it gets brought up. The only people holding this up are Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party.

Boehner has already stated he won't let us default, and there's only a few insane Republicans that would actually vote Nay on raising debt ceiling.

[weso1]

They are meeting and negotiating. This is actually happening. There are actual new stories on this. Don't get too hung up on what is said in public.

[weso1]

Not necessarily.

The Dems don't need to negotiate on anything. There's already a bunch of Republicans who think this has dragged out too long already and are ready to vote and pass a CR bill if Boehner brings it up to vote. Peter King already said there's a few dozen of House Republicans ready to vote with Democrats on a CR bill if it gets brought up. The only people holding this up are Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party.

Boehner has already stated he won't let us default, and there's only a few insane Republicans that would actually vote Nay on raising debt ceiling.

The why doesn't explain away your hypocrisy on this.

[The Chosen One]

They are meeting and negotiating. This is actually happening. There are actual new stories on this. Don't get too hung up on what is said in public.

They are meeting and negotiating, because they want the public to "know" that something good may be happening.

When it's all said and done, Boehner is going to put a CR bill on the floor with nothing changed, the House Dems will have House Republicans voting with them, while the Tea Party faction will have enough votes to vote No but not block the bill, the Senate will pass it, etc.

The political theater the Republicans have produced the last week or so, has almost run its course.

[Julio3000]

So when the dems don't compromise it's the right move and when the reps don't it's sour grapes. Sounds like a fair analysis.

The Democrats have already compromised on the budget. Repeatedly.

Not giving the R's the unreasonable thing they're asking for =/= not compromising.

[weso1]

The Democrats have already compromised on the budget. Repeatedly.

Not giving the R's the unreasonable thing they're asking for =/= not compromising.

Look, the dems are the ones saying they aren't negotiating, not me. I'm saying in reality they are negotiating. Congressional leaders just recently met with each other and the president. I don't expect the pubs to get the year delay they seek either. But there are other things they'll try to get.

[57Brave]

This isn't between (D) and (R). It is between mainstream (R) and TBaggers.
Until that side of the aisle straightens out their differences nothing will happen.

Reports are 21 (R) House members are willing to vote with (D) to end the shutdown. However Boehner, fearing losing his leadership, won't put the vote on the floor.
It is ludicrous bordering on ignorant to even give thought that both sides equally share responsibility for this mess.

Another thing -- there are approximatly 20-60 safe House districts that are driving this. 20-60 that represent 18% of the population

[50PoundHead]

I'm a solid Democrat, but this is really nothing new if you look at American history. The era of American history starting with the Missouri Compromise and ending with the civil war had brinksmenship that make these guys look like rank amateurs. Plus, the future of the country was much more tenuous then.

The Republicans are playing a high stakes game here. I think they are losing this battle, but the public's attention span isn't that long on these crises. But they are using the tools they have at their disposal. Do I agree with them? No. Do I want the Tea Party to lose? Yes. But this is what politics is about. It's a contact sport and we midway through this particular rugby match.

[BedellBrave]

50, I respect you. What I don't is the homerism, "only my jersey guys do it right," ra-ra, of others who when the shoe is on the other foot would cheer the same game plan they lambast. And who conveniently never seem to see the dirty tricks of their guys. And those that think only the opposite jersey folks have "radical extremists." And I'm getting close to Hawk territory by the day.

[BedellBrave]

Oh and while I am at it - you young punks (and that's all but a couple of you) - get off my frickin lawn.

[Julio3000]

I'm saying in reality they are negotiating.

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable assumption. I'm just saying that the statement that the Ds aren't compromising isn't.

[57Brave]

Yeah. Anyone who thinks Obama is hyperpartisan is insane. Reid isn't even as liberal as Pelosi, he just happens to be majority leader. Pelosi may be far left in the House, but Reid isn't as liberal as someone like a Bernie or Warren or even a Ron Wyden.

Also, the notion that we have to meet halfway with Republicans on everything is also insane. If I'm looking at a left to right scale from -10 to +10 with 0 being the center of this country... I'd say mainstream Dems fall in the -3 or -4 on the left side, and the GOP currently falls on the +8,+9 on that scale. The middleground of -4 and +9 is going to be +2 or +3. Concessions would be to find something to meet back at 0, but that'd be too "liberal" for this currrent mainstream GOP.

Bedell please go back to see Meta and 50's posts on page 3 along with this apt description. Make your claim about radicals on either side all you like but it really doesn't wash.

[57Brave]

50, I respect you. What I don't is the homerism, "only my jersey guys do it right," ra-ra, of others who when the shoe is on the other foot would cheer the same game plan they lambast. And who conveniently never seem to see the dirty tricks of their guys. And those that think only the opposite jersey folks have "radical extremists." And I'm getting close to Hawk territory by the day.


Please show me the (D) equivalent to this!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/tom-corbett-***-marriage-incest_n_4043202.html

I would ask that he / she be a Governor.
//

Please take the time to find a (D) equivalent to Phil Gingrey
http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Phil_Gingrey.htm#Energy_+_Oil

Pick most any elected official

[Julio3000]

Well, I think the value of those rating systems is debatable.

[BedellBrave]

57, debating with you is futile. Not interested. Not much interested in this board any more to be honest.

[57Brave]

get off my lawn kid :)

[weso1]

57, debating with you is futile. Not interested. Not much interested in this board any more to be honest.

I feel like I'm in a desert all alone with no water and vultures circling overhead.

[57Brave]

hows bout Hanley ---then Carpenter?

[The Chosen One]

hows bout Hanley ---then Carpenter?

Should spook Boehner.

[Oklahomahawk]

50, I respect you. What I don't is the homerism, "only my jersey guys do it right," ra-ra, of others who when the shoe is on the other foot would cheer the same game plan they lambast. And who conveniently never seem to see the dirty tricks of their guys. And those that think only the opposite jersey folks have "radical extremists." And I'm getting close to Hawk territory by the day.

Come on in Bedell, the water is fine.......................

[50PoundHead]

I feel like I'm in a desert all alone with no water and vultures circling overhead.

Weso, if you look anything like that avatar, don't worry, the buzzards will fly away. :icon_biggrin:

Bedell, I'm not too critical of either side here. They are both employing the strategies they see fit the situation. I don't particularly like the Tea Party, but it's a free country. I get tired of homerism by both sides, but I've been in the political/government game so long, it just kind of rolls off my back.

I'm a center/left consensus guy. I actually think the country is center/right when compared to the rest of the world. I think what we've seen over the past two decades is a hardening of the ends of the spectrum. I grew up on a farm and at some point, you don't debate about the hay. You bale it and haul it. Most people want predictability and security. It seems most of Washington wants job security and playing to the galleries ensures that.

[zitothebrave]

Why do the dems have to compromise because the Rs are holding the country hostage? Rs will try to spin this against the dems but everyone knows it's on the Rs. All they have to do is remove their Obamacare provisions and it passes.

Don't take a hostage you are afraid to kill. The Rs won't kill the government and the Ds know that. Honestly the Ds could hold out and get more if they really wanted to.

[Oklahomahawk]

Why do the dems have to compromise because the Rs are holding the country hostage? Rs will try to spin this against the dems but everyone knows it's on the Rs. All they have to do is remove their Obamacare provisions and it passes.

Don't take a hostage you are afraid to kill. The Rs won't kill the government and the Ds know that. Honestly the Ds could hold out and get more if they really wanted to.

And let's be honest, it isn't the bulk of mainstream Rs who are doing this, it's the lunatic fringe, it's just that with midterm elections coming up Speaker Boner, er Boehner is too scared to stand up to the group that embraces folks like Christine O'Donnell, Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, and the absolute worst of all Michelle Bachman, as ""visionaries.

It would be like one fringe group from the libs taking over the whole party, such as same-sex marriage rights folks, or abortion rights folks, or global warming folks. All those groups rise and fall in popularity in the Dem party but to me they haven't gathered up the pitchforks and torches and stormed the castle like TEA party folks have the Repub party. A whole bunch of the stuff I said was going to happen a long time ago is happening and it doesn't make me happy. I'm truly worried about the future of this country and for many different reasons, not just the TEA folks.

Anyone who's interested can just do a little research into 1780's France and you'll see our future unless things are turned around and soon. The problem is I don't see anyone qualified or willing to turn anything around unless it's to nudge some of the hogs away from the trough so that their hogs can get a little closer.

[50PoundHead]

And let's be honest, it isn't the bulk of mainstream Rs who are doing this, it's the lunatic fringe, it's just that with midterm elections coming up Speaker Boner, er Boehner is too scared to stand up to the group that embraces folks like Christine O'Donnell, Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, and the absolute worst of all Michelle Bachman, as ""visionaries.

It would be like one fringe group from the libs taking over the whole party, such as same-sex marriage rights folks, or abortion rights folks, or global warming folks. All those groups rise and fall in popularity in the Dem party but to me they haven't gathered up the pitchforks and torches and stormed the castle like TEA party folks have the Repub party. A whole bunch of the stuff I said was going to happen a long time ago is happening and it doesn't make me happy. I'm truly worried about the future of this country and for many different reasons, not just the TEA folks.

Anyone who's interested can just do a little research into 1780's France and you'll see our future unless things are turned around and soon. The problem is I don't see anyone qualified or willing to turn anything around unless it's to nudge some of the hogs away from the trough so that their hogs can get a little closer.

Pretty succinct and accurate portrayal of the situation. Boehner is a center/right consensus guy. I don't know if it's a failure of leadership on his part or not because he's got a bunch of folks in his caucus who won't be led.

I highlighted Bachman (Hey, don't make me post the picture of me sitting next to her when she was in the Minnesota Legislature and I was testifying on one of her bills) because she is case in point of the dynamic that is causing problems in the Republican caucus. After the 2010 elections, Bachman ran for a leadership post and lost. But did she (and her cohorts) really lose? Excluded from the inner sanctum, they can go about their merry way and play to the galleries and avoid any responsibility for anything that happens. If they were in the inner sanctum, they'd have to be part of the leadership team and negotiate. So for them, it's "Why negotiate? That's Boehner's job." One of Minnesota's Republican Congressman is already feeling the heat in this scenario. Eric Paulson let it drop the other day that he thinks it's time to settle and work with the White House and Senate to make some changes to the Affordable Care Act down the road. An hour after he says that, a Tea Party-type blogger in his district starts beating the drums for mounting a challenge to Paulson from the right. Paulson is a conservative guy and he represents a moderate Republican district, but in a low-turnout primary, he could be vulnerable and the Republicans could fumble away the seat to a moderate Democrat, like they did with the US Senate seats in Delaware and Indiana last election cycle.

Hawk, I, too, ponder the future of the country. I don't know where it's heading on some days. All I know is that there needs to be a viable social contract and ours is fraying. I think the problem is more sociological (which then extends to demographics, economics, and politics) than anything else. I grew up in small town in the 1950s and 1960s and there was a shared experience within the communal sphere that helped everyone understand everyone else. It didn't lead to agreement on everything, but pretty much everyone understood where everyone else was coming from. Read Bill Bishop's The Big Sort. When like-minded people congregate in like-minded communities, walls of misunderstanding are built between communities because people have a hard time "getting" the people down the road. Add to that some of the late conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet's thoughts on the disintegration of community (which puts too much stress on families) and you've got a pretty vile brew a bubblin'. I don't know if I'll ever have time to do it, as a misspent youth and a financially-damaging divorce will require me to keep working well beyond my lucid years (I imagine some of you would argue that I am already beyond them), but I'd like to work on a book or monograph that would expand on my thesis.

[Metaphysicist]

Anyone who's interested can just do a little research into 1780's France and you'll see our future unless things are turned around and soon.

You think the French are going to lay siege to Yorktown again? That seems a little bit paranoid.

[jpx7]

You think the French are going to lay siege to Yorktown again? That seems a little bit paranoid.

They covet unrestricted access to Colonial Williamsburg.

[cajunrevenge]

You think the French are going to lay siege to Yorktown again? That seems a little bit paranoid.

Congrats sir, you win the sarcasm award of the year. Your skill level in sarcasm is clearly over 9,000.

[The Chosen One]

Congrats sir, you win the sarcasm award of the year. Your skill level in sarcasm is clearly over 9,000.

It's OVER 9,000!!?!?? :Gasp:

[Creature]

Hey guys

[The Chosen One]

Hey guys

Welcome aboard! I'm the one that plugged the site on the ESPN Conversation page that you saw!

Always great to have more Braves fans here. :tchop:

[Oklahomahawk]

You think the French are going to lay siege to Yorktown again? That seems a little bit paranoid.

OK, a tad bit later in the 1780's, and in France not over here, and those French warships of which you speak were here at our behest.

[jpx7]

OK, a tad bit later in the 1780's, and in France not over here, and those French warships of which you speak were here at our behest.

Who is this "our"? I'm still loyal to the British.

[BedellBrave]

Yay! Glad I'm not the only royalist. Course it'd suck being under British control too and we'd all have bad teeth.

[50PoundHead]

Yay! Glad I'm not the only royalist. Course it'd suck being under British control too and we'd all have bad teeth.

Wouldn't be so bad if Elvis or "King" Jerry Lawler were the monarch. They are both kings after all.

[bravesnumberone]

I personally think the country would be happier if Don King were our monarch and for the State of the Union addresses, he just stood at the podium and waved two American flags.

We'd be accomplishing much more than we are now.

[zitothebrave]

http://cdn.meme.li/i/oy37z.jpg

[Coredor]

This is getting great reviews. I guess this speaks to how much respect people have for House Republicans these days. Not a fan of it, but it amuses me that they've sunk to such a level where this is apparently cool. So Enjoy Miley's SNL music video spoofing House Republicans.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5kg8ibCAXM

[zitothebrave]

Boehner already letting off Obamacare and talking entitlement reform.

I have a pretty simple entitlement reform. Remove (or raise) payroll tax caps. It's something that will only effect a small portion of the population (as it's only payroll and capped at 100K) that small increase (which hasn't changed in years and more people are exempt than originally) would easily make SS viable through the boomers as long as government isn't irresponsible with the money.

[weso1]

Boehner already letting off Obamacare and talking entitlement reform.

I have a pretty simple entitlement reform. Remove (or raise) payroll tax caps. It's something that will only effect a small portion of the population (as it's only payroll and capped at 100K) that small increase (which hasn't changed in years and more people are exempt than originally) would easily make SS viable through the boomers as long as government isn't irresponsible with the money.

My daughter's chalk drawing will stay on our driveway through 2015 as long as it doesn't rain before then.

[The Chosen One]

My daughter's chalk drawing will stay on our driveway through 2015 as long as it doesn't rain before then.

You're such an awesome dad that you'd probably restore it with new chalk if it started fading. :Alone:

[The Chosen One]

http://i.lvme.me/hqi5rdt_1.jpg

[CK86]

Both sides come out of this looking like children.

[yeezus]

"Hey, let me burn your house down."
"Uh..no."
"Ok, how about just the couches and tables?"
"No."
"At least let me blow up your car."
"No!"
"You're not comprimising!!!"

[zitothebrave]

Both sides come out of this looking like children.

As someone who hates both parties the repubs are looking much worse and lost their leverage they could have gained in the debt ceiling. They could have said we'd pass the budget with some concessions for the debt ceiling. But they bet the house on the budget and no matter what happens they will look bad.

[57Brave]

Maybe this isn't about "both parties" or at least the "both parties we are used to talking about
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/right_wing_coup_deluded_secessionists_have_already _won/
////

Thanks to a confluence of three events, the S-word – secession – is once again in the air. In Washington, new questions are emerging about whether the United States can function as a unified nation after a partial government shutdown was engineered by a largely regional party – one whose home territory looks eerily similar to the Confederacy. Adding to the questions about the viability of the post-Civil War union is the fact that the shutdown has been orchestrated by a Texas legislator whose state party stalwarts – including its governor – seem to support secession, to the point of taking concrete legislative steps to prepare for independence. On top of all that, in states across the country, incipient secession movements have sprung up only a few months after secession petitions flooded the White House website.

[CK86]

"Don't screw it up, okay? Don't screw it up."

[cajunrevenge]

I agree with Secession only if Libertarians can get a small state or two of our own. We could probably sustain the whole economy just by making drugs legal and then selling them to the Democrat and Republican countries. The fact that it would still be illegal in those countries would only drive the price up and make us richer.

[CK86]

Isn't like 86% of the government still open and operating? Is it really a shutdown with only 14% not working?

[Tapate50]

Boy, Dems have really pizzed of DC reps.

[57Brave]

Isn't like 86% of the government still open and operating? Is it really a shutdown with only 14% not working?

How many of those 86% are furloughed and working without pay with the threat of jail if they don't?

[57Brave]

Boy, Dems have really pizzed of DC reps.

?

[cajunrevenge]

Isn't like 86% of the government still open and operating? Is it really a shutdown with only 14% not working?

The reason they are so scared is because the longer this goes on the more people will realize that we will be just fine with the government "shutdown".

You can't claim to be shut down but still be able to wage multiple wars.

[CK86]

I've gone 10 days without the 14% of the government and not felt anything different. Perhaps that says something about the size of the government.

But hey, at least those WW2 vets got shown whose the boss by Obama and the Dems! They showed us!

[Tapate50]

?

Quite the exchange with DC locals and Reid

[weso1]

So the furloughed workers are gauranteed back pay thanks to the House unless of course Reid and Obama are really that evil. So for those who were responsible and created a nest egg it's like having a nice long vacation. I think some are getting unemployment as well. Really not a bad gig at all for some folks.

Those who weren't responsible... Well they learned a valuable lesson. Make sure you have a nice little nest egg... not too big though.

[57Brave]

this was all about teaching people how to manage their money?
I'm confused -- I thought it was about defunding and repealing Obamacare

I think there are only like, 15 people left in the universe that think this shutdown is / was a good idea. My problem is, they all seem to be Braves fans

[Tapate50]

If that's your biggest problem, you sir are living the high life. Then again most in RI are already.

[sturg33]

I hope the govt workers are enjoying their paid vacation... I sure am confused why I'm not seeing a bigger pay check tomorrow...

[weso1]

this was all about teaching people how to manage their money?
I'm confused -- I thought it was about defunding and repealing Obamacare

I think there are only like, 15 people left in the universe that think this shutdown is / was a good idea. My problem is, they all seem to be Braves fans

Well, you don't think very well then. I never said it was a good idea nor did I say it was all about teaching people how to manage money (can't believe someone actually interpreted it that way). There certainly are those who are effected, but not as many as you probably think. I just said it isn't as horrific as some of you think it is. And I think I'm right about that. In the end it will largely be forgotten when it is over.

[acesfull86]

Gold should be happy for these people...he's always telling us we should work less and enjoy life more. :)

[CK86]

The government workers will get back pay and essentially a free vacation, woe is them.

[sturg33]

Any minute now the world should end...

[CK86]

2 weeks of paid vacation, better than I get at work!

[CK86]

BTW what a shock that Speaker White flag and company cave on a Friday night. Hilarious and predictable.

[CK86]

http://freebeacon.com/unions-asks-for-shutdown-to-be-deemed-an-emergency/

lol

[57Brave]

Serious question:


Are there provisions in the constitution where the Senate wrests power from the House?
Visa versa?

[goldfly]

i hope weso is right about a last minute deal

not really sure why we have to make a deal to do this

but whatever

[weso1]

Even if they don't reach a deal Obama won't let the US default. Unless he's just the worst President ever, which I don't think he's that bad. But they'll reach a deal shortly after if they go past the deadline. I think they still have several weeks before an actual default would occur.

It's just negotiation. It's what they do. The fearmongering is a part of it. What the republicans are asking for now is extremely reasonable. I think most Americans would support the GOP's latest offer if they cared to know what it was. I don't really get what's wrong with negotiating, but some people can't stand the heat.

People will get all worked up over it next time too, but they'll always raise the debt ceiling before default or before we get too far into default. They have no choice.

[sturg33]

I think debt ceilings are hilarious.

They would only matter if our leadership respected them. Why even call it a ceiling?

[AerchAngel]

I think debt ceilings are hilarious.

They would only matter if our leadership respected them. Why even call it a ceiling?

exactly.

It's like why have a batting coach when they don't do anything.

[zitothebrave]

Even if they don't reach a deal Obama won't let the US default. Unless he's just the worst President ever, which I don't think he's that bad. But they'll reach a deal shortly after if they go past the deadline. I think they still have several weeks before an actual default would occur.

It's just negotiation. It's what they do. The fearmongering is a part of it. What the republicans are asking for now is extremely reasonable. I think most Americans would support the GOP's latest offer if they cared to know what it was. I don't really get what's wrong with negotiating, but some people can't stand the heat.

People will get all worked up over it next time too, but they'll always raise the debt ceiling before default or before we get too far into default. They have no choice.

I don't know what the republican's latest offer is because even they can't agree with it haha. Only hope the Rs have is for the Senate to pass a deal that the house dems will almost unanimously vote for the centric reps will vote for.

[57Brave]

"What the republicans are asking for now is extremely reasonable."
Really?

Even Republicans don't think their requests are reasonable. Let alone "extremely reasonable"

[Tapate50]

"What the republicans are asking for now is extremely reasonable."
Really?

Even Republicans don't think "Tea Party Pubs" requests are reasonable. Let alone "extremely reasonable"

The "Reply With Quote" button on your lower right works extremely well. Don't be scared, it won't bite.

And I fixed it for you.

[weso1]

"What the republicans are asking for now is extremely reasonable."
Really?

Even Republicans don't think their requests are reasonable. Let alone "extremely reasonable"

lol... you and zito are such insufferable homers. All Boehner is basically asking for now is that the law applies to everyone equally. It's a reasonable proposal. Yeah it's true that some republicans don't like it, because it's such a great deal for the dems.

Reid's terms are much more unreasonable. He's asking for multiple things on top of no fixes to issues in Obamacare.

[57Brave]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of it. Just saying Republicans aren't finding Republican plans reasonable.
Fox News reports - National Review articles and WSJ editorials agree with that statement
Not sure what that has to do with homer or jerseys or whatever.

If anything is learned by the right from the last election and even their skewed projections over the shutdown it should be. There are facts and denying facts in favor of opinion is not productive.

Wow, kinda goes back to evolution and climate change. Ones opinion is not equal to data.

[weso1]

I'm not disagreeing with your facts. I added perspective which you ignore as per usual. You're essentially saying that because tea party pubs hate the deal it makes the deal unreasonable. Quite a turn around for you. Look at the offer and tell me what's unreasonable.

[weso1]

Looks like the senate reached a deal and we get to do the fearmongering all over again in a few months. The debt ceiling is the biggest charade of all time.

[57Brave]

I'm not disagreeing with your facts. I added perspective which you ignore as per usual. You're essentially saying that because tea party pubs hate the deal it makes the deal unreasonable. Quite a turn around for you. Look at the offer and tell me what's unreasonable.


Never said I find it unreasonable - you are assuming I would.
What I said was Republicans find it unreasonable.
I do disagree with the perspective you provided though. Because I don't see anyone in Congress with (TP) after their name. The people that held up the process had (R) behind their name.

My perspective? (R) made a deal with the devil after the 2008 election. As the devil is prone to do, he calls in his chits.

[weso1]

Never said I find it unreasonable - you are assuming I would.
What I said was Republicans find it unreasonable.
I do disagree with the perspective you provided though. Because I don't see anyone in Congress with (TP) after their name. The people that held up the process had (R) behind their name.

My perspective? (R) made a deal with the devil after the 2008 election. As the devil is prone to do, he calls in his chits.

Your argument makes no sense. Let's just move on as I don't see this going anywhere.

[Julio3000]

I'm not disagreeing with your facts. I added perspective which you ignore as per usual. You're essentially saying that because tea party pubs hate the deal it makes the deal unreasonable. Quite a turn around for you. Look at the offer and tell me what's unreasonable.

Weso, I think the question isn't if it's a reasonable demand, as part of a negotiation, but if it's reasonable to use the budget as a vehicle to demand changes in the ACA.

[weso1]

Weso, I think the question isn't if it's a reasonable demand, as part of a negotiation, but if it's reasonable to use the budget as a vehicle to demand changes in the ACA.

That's a whole other question. I disagree with the shutdown in this case, but have no problem with using the debt ceiling as a vehicle. Because I know lawmakers will never allow us to go deep into default, and likely we'll never even go past the deadline without a deal. It's all fearmongering.

[CK86]

When's the last time an actual budget has passed? There's not a budget process, it's just called kicking it down the can so future generations can pay back this debt. Every worker in the country owes $123,000 just because of how reckless we are at spending. If you're not going to do something now, they never will.

Wish they would raise the debt ceiling but keep the 14% paid vacation going.

[bravesnumberone]

With the republicans' public fumbling of this whole situation, what gets lost is the people in Congress who continue to pass funding without any sense whatsoever of cutting spending and trying to work for a balanced budget and no regard for how future generations will have to deal with the consequences.

[sturg33]

Who's more to blame for the shutdown, Bush or Obama?

http://youngcons.com/facepalm-liberals-blame-government-shutdown-on-bush/

[57Brave]

Your argument makes no sense. Let's just move on as I don't see this going anywhere.


wasn't meant to go anywhere I simply thought your assessment ludicrous . Since 2010 TBaggers and (R) were interchangeable entities.

Again I thought (R) accepted the tea Party strictly as a vehicle to get those votes. A movement that held hard feelings Anti-Obama votes. And I might add not over policy- because those most visibly opposed had the most to gain by Obama policies - and I would argue the most to lose following Koch Brothers and the other funders of the TBagg bumper sticker movement. Because in the end that is all the TParty was - a bumper sticker

[CK86]

Good thing the clean resolution included $2 billion earmark for Kentucky. Nothing to see here guys, nothing to see.

[zitothebrave]

Good thing the clean resolution included $2 billion earmark for Kentucky. Nothing to see here guys, nothing to see.

Wahhhh you mean Rand Paul is crooked???

[CK86]

Wahhhh you mean Rand Paul is crooked???

Rand Paul voted against it. Mitch McConnell created the bill.

[zitothebrave]

Rand Paul voted against it. Mitch McConnell created the bill.

Lol, you don't think they're in cohorts? This lets paul keep his rep as a fiscal conservative and feed his donors.

[CK86]

Lol, you don't think they're in cohorts? This lets paul keep his rep as a fiscal conservative and feed his donors.

Considering the Republicans seem to want to distance themselves as far away as possible from senators and representatives like Paul, no I don't think they're in cohorts. I think McConnell is just being the slimeball he's always been.

[zitothebrave]

McConnell is a slimeball, but he's not gonna try to distance himself from Paul. Paul on a VP ticket would be their dream.

[CK86]

I'm amazed that Nancy Pelosi can deliver the votes every single time. Contrast that with Boehner.

[The Chosen One]

I'm amazed that Nancy Pelosi can deliver the votes every single time. Contrast that with Boehner.

There isn't an internal civil war amongst Democrats as there is on the right.

[50PoundHead]

I'm amazed that Nancy Pelosi can deliver the votes every single time. Contrast that with Boehner.

White House has lots of pull.

[Oklahomahawk]

There isn't an internal civil war amongst Democrats as there is on the right.

Remember when the Jets had all those egos and eff-ups, and screwballs but they were winning at the time, getting to the AFC championship game so they got along just fine, then they started losing and the whole thing went to sh!t overnight?? The Dems were in the same boat just a few years ago and the Repubs were flying high, now they lose a couple of elections and all the cracks start to widen and all those stupid idiosyncrasies that were kinda cute yesterday, are annoying as bleeping hell today... IMO the sooner the Repubs and organized religion part ways the sooner both will be healthier, and the sooner the TEA nutjobs go jump off a cliff the sooner we'll all be doing better.

The Dems absolutely suck but they're mopping the floor with the Repubs and everybody who isn't a talk radio zombie can see it. That's not a good situation for them or the country. As I've said for about the last freakin' decade the Repubs need a REAL come to Jesus session, sadly the organized religion Elmer Gantries have them convinced they speak for God and he told them that Michelle Bachman, et al is going to lead them to the promised land...

[sturg33]

There isn't an internal civil war amongst Democrats as there is on the right.

Zito just told us they're in cahoots

[The Chosen One]

Zito just told us they're in cahoots

As in, Pelosi is sleeping with Boehner?

[zitothebrave]

Zito just told us they're in cahoots

You don't see the line Paul is going for?He wants to be between all of the Rs. It's a tightrope but he's done pretty well so far keeping both sides happy.

[sturg33]

You don't see the line Paul is going for?He wants to be between all of the Rs. It's a tightrope but he's done pretty well so far keeping both sides happy.

Is that fair to Paul? If he votes for it, he's corrupt. If he votes against it, he's corrupt.

Seems like a no win to me

[The Chosen One]

Is that fair to Paul? If he votes for it, he's corrupt. If he votes against it, he's corrupt.

Seems like a no win to me

He's corrupt because he's as big of a hypocrite as his Senior Senator of Kentucky. I give him credit, he's smart in the sense he hasn't taken this government shutdown thing and gone into kamikaze mode like Ted Cruz. Smart of him to let Ted Cruz self-destruct on National TV and be the poster-child for right-wing insanity, so he can move and position himself better for the 2016 run.

[goldfly]

Good call Weso

[goldfly]

I'm amazed that Nancy Pelosi can deliver the votes every single time. Contrast that with Boehner.

the biggest selling point is that being a democrat, you can actually become president one day

you can't say that if you are a republican so you are fighting to be the big dog in house cause you really can't get bigger than that arena on that side

[acesfull86]

Well now that the Republicans are no longer holding the future of America hostage, that means today we're going to start talking about Obamacare...right? Right?

[sturg33]

He's corrupt because he's as big of a hypocrite as his Senior Senator of Kentucky. I give him credit, he's smart in the sense he hasn't taken this government shutdown thing and gone into kamikaze mode like Ted Cruz. Smart of him to let Ted Cruz self-destruct on National TV and be the poster-child for right-wing insanity, so he can move and position himself better for the 2016 run.

Can you give an example of why he is corrupt?

[Oklahomahawk]

As in, Pelosi is sleeping with Boehner?

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tapate50]

Well now that the Republicans are no longer holding the future of America hostage, that means today we're going to start talking about Obamacare...right? Right?

57 won't acknowledge real findings 17 days into the sign up. But hey, I heard Delaware got their first sign up yesterday, so thats good.

[acesfull86]

57 won't acknowledge real findings 17 days into the sign up. But hey, I heard Delaware got their first sign up yesterday, so thats good.

1 / 917,092 in Delaware... not too shabby.

I also predict we're going to make significant and necessary changes to our spending habits....definitely not going to just kick this can down the road....

[57Brave]

1 / 917,092 in Delaware... not too shabby.

I also predict we're going to make significant and necessary changes to our spending habits....definitely not going to just kick this can down the road....

This stat was broadcast on local radio drive show this morning.
But consider - the same radio host (your "jerseys") little over 10 years ago was celebrating Mission Accomplished after 8 weeks in Iraq.

[Tapate50]

This stat was broadcast on local radio drive show this morning.
But consider - the same radio host (your "jerseys") little over 10 years ago was celebrating Mission Accomplished after 8 weeks in Iraq.

I don't think Opie and Anthony have a jersey. If they do, I didn't realize it. I also listen to fantasy football radio, they have a jersey?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/delaware-health-officials-celebrate-first-health-exchange-enrollee/2013/10/16/ddc5e9d2-3657-11e3-89db-8002ba99b894_story.html


What does this have to do with Mision Accomplished? Nothing. Not one single thing... again with the deflection and jersey obsession.

Straight facts: Our carrier is raising rates 11\1, 12\1, and 1\1 to get to ACA rates. How is that good for American families? Address this and stop deflecting.

Why are they asking personal, financial, and medical questions? Has Huffpost told you your answer yet?

[CK86]

I'd like to know why a website that cost $634 million to develop doesn't work? I'd also like to know why the security on the site is considered so bad that you are putting your identity at risk for identity theft just by signing up?

This website cost more than Facebook, Twitter, instagram, and LinkedIn combined and it doesn't work at all.

What would you say to those of us who don't believe that government run healthcare will be effective or efficient? Is a botched website of all things not a good indicator for the likelihood of success?

Blame Bush.

[Julio3000]

It's funny to find myself saying something nice about Boehner, since he's the nominal leader of a group who have collectively twisted into pretzels to avoid giving the president any kind of victory, almost regardless of consequence. Still, I have to say that he, when it's nut-cutting time, may be interested in actually governing. He tried to get a deal done in 2011, and I bet he'll try again. As in 2011, if he fails it will be because he can't deliver his caucus, not because he doesn't have a partner to work with. It blows my mind that lefties in this thread are getting scolded for partisanship and "jerseys" in the wake of the Tea Party jizzfest that just happened.

Seriously. The shutdown and default brinksmanship was 100% the choice of ONE faction of ONE party. They chose a fight that they could not win and that the public did not support.

Personally, I am a proponent of compromise, consensus, and negotiation. I don't like it when "my team" doesn't negotiate in good faith, or obstructs, or plays procedural games. As 50 said, way upthread, it's politics and it gonna happen. There was no reason for the WH to engage in meaningful negotiations with that group, and there was no way that group was going to let the Speaker do any actual work with the other side. Again, the right wing picked a stupid fight, and predictably lost it.

Right now, I think there is a consensus in the middle of the country that is ready and willing to approach some of the consequential issues: entitlement reform, immigration, etc. As it stands, there are too many goofs who won't let that happen, instead insisting that they have some kind of mandate to rule the country from its margins. I hope that 2014 changes that.

[Julio3000]

I'd like to know why a website that cost $634 million to develop doesn't work?

The rollout was bad, and even embarrassing. Guess what? They'll fix it. I'm puzzled by peoples' willingness to call Obamacare a failure before it's implemented.

I'd also like to know why the security on the site is considered so bad that you are putting your identity at risk for identity theft just by signing up?

Can you provide a link?

What would you say to those of us who don't believe that government run healthcare will be effective or efficient?

I would ask them if the ACA equals "government run healthcare."

Is a botched website of all things not a good indicator for the likelihood of success?

No. Is it a guarantor of failure?

If Obamacare were really going to be such a flaming manure-pile, why would Republicans be trying so hard to hamstring it and delay its implementation? Seems like they'd just watch it crash and burn, then swoop in and save the day.

[57Brave]

[QUOTE=Tapate50;56659]I don't think Opie and Anthony have a jersey. If they do, I didn't realize it. I also listen to fantasy football radio, they have a jersey?
Opie and Anthony --




What does this have to do with Mision Accomplished? Nothing. Not one single thing... again with the deflection and jersey obsession.
Because the same people that are yelling failure the loudest were the same people yelling Mission Accomplished the loudest. While both situations are / were still too recent to make that judgment
The jersey reference is a tribute to my good friend . Personally I'm a skins n shirts guy

I guess you could add Mitt Romneys certain victory to the list of proclamations the same people got wrong

[Julio3000]

As in, Pelosi is sleeping with Boehner?

They're not doing much sleeping, I hear.

Maybe Nancy can tell us if the, er, Speaker's Gavel is orange, too.

/wood, maybe forever.

[Tapate50]

[QUOTE=Tapate50;56659]I don't think Opie and Anthony have a jersey. If they do, I didn't realize it. I also listen to fantasy football radio, they have a jersey?
Opie and Anthony --




What does this have to do with Mision Accomplished? Nothing. Not one single thing... again with the deflection and jersey obsession.
Because the same people that are yelling failure the loudest were the same people yelling Mission Accomplished the loudest. While both situations are / were still too recent to make that judgment
The jersey reference is a tribute to my good friend . Personally I'm a skins n shirts guy

I guess you could add Mitt Romneys certain victory to the list of proclamations the same people got wrong

Absolutely nothing in the above multicolored post addresses any direct information coming out about ACA that I posted. You didn't disappoint. More of the same deflecting....

[Tapate50]

It's funny to find myself saying something nice about Boehner, since he's the nominal leader of a group who have collectively twisted into pretzels to avoid giving the president any kind of victory, almost regardless of consequence. Still, I have to say that he, when it's nut-cutting time, may be interested in actually governing. He tried to get a deal done in 2011, and I bet he'll try again. As in 2011, if he fails it will be because he can't deliver his caucus, not because he doesn't have a partner to work with. It blows my mind that lefties in this thread are getting scolded for partisanship and "jerseys" in the wake of the Tea Party jizzfest that just happened.

Seriously. The shutdown and default brinksmanship was 100% the choice of ONE faction of ONE party. They chose a fight that they could not win and that the public did not support.

Personally, I am a proponent of compromise, consensus, and negotiation. I don't like it when "my team" doesn't negotiate in good faith, or obstructs, or plays procedural games. As 50 said, way upthread, it's politics and it gonna happen. There was no reason for the WH to engage in meaningful negotiations with that group, and there was no way that group was going to let the Speaker do any actual work with the other side. Again, the right wing picked a stupid fight, and predictably lost it.

Right now, I think there is a consensus in the middle of the country that is ready and willing to approach some of the consequential issues: entitlement reform, immigration, etc. As it stands, there are too many goofs who won't let that happen, instead insisting that they have some kind of mandate to rule the country from its margins. I hope that 2014 changes that.

I agree on Boehner. I made a comment 57's informitive House thread that Dems need to be careful how they deal with him. His replacement could be worse and way more interested in being stubborn than Boehner.

Signed,

Can you be a conservative and not support the Tea Party? If not, I didn't get the memo.

[Julio3000]

I agree on Boehner. I made a comment 57's informitive House thread that Dems need to be careful how they deal with him. His replacement could be worse and way more interested in being stubborn than Boehner.

Signed,

Can you be a conservative and not support the Tea Party? If not, I didn't get the memo.

I guess the term gets tossed around pretty lazily.

[57Brave]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/17/winners-losers-shutdown-debt-ceiling

[CK86]

The rollout was bad, and even embarrassing. Guess what? They'll fix it. I'm puzzled by peoples' willingness to call Obamacare a failure before it's implemented.

I'd also like to know why the security on the site is considered so bad that you are putting your identity at risk for identity theft just by signing up?

Can you provide a link?

What would you say to those of us who don't believe that government run healthcare will be effective or efficient?

I would ask them if the ACA equals "government run healthcare."

Is a botched website of all things not a good indicator for the likelihood of success?

No. Is it a guarantor of failure?

If Obamacare were really going to be such a flaming manure-pile, why would Republicans be trying so hard to hamstring it and delay its implementation? Seems like they'd just watch it crash and burn, then swoop in and save the day.

They spent more than Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn and instagram combined and still don't have a competent website.

John McAfee says the website is "a hacker's wet dream" the way they designed it and also says none of that can be fixed until the website is fundamentally changed.

The government being in charge of the exchanges, the implementation of the ACA, hiring thousands of new IRS agents to make sure you have insurance and the fact premiums and deductibles are going up say it's government run. If the government wasn't so involved, you wouldn't have people complaining about them screwing up the healthcare system.

Some Republicans are obstructing the ACA because Obama is for it. There are others who think the law has some serious issues we should solve before it's implemented all the way and it becomes a beaucratic mess to untangle. There are others that don't think the government should be so involved in tampering with the free market. It's either join the Obamacare cartel or get taxed for not having it regardless of health.

They're taking over a sixth of the GDP because of this law and they can't even get a simple website right is why many are hoping to stop it. They'll just keep taxing and spending with no end in sight while entitlements continue to grow.

This was a real chance to do something drastic and instead the Republicans caved like always.

[Tapate50]

I guess the term gets tossed around pretty lazily.

Gotten to the point its another party IMO...They may have some ideas that align, but becoming fewer and fewer at this juncture.

[Julio3000]

They're taking over a sixth of the GDP

No, they're not. Are healthcare providers working for or getting paid by the government? Are private insurers still in business?

This was a real chance to do something drastic and instead the Republicans caved like always.

There was absolutely no chance of doing anything drastic . . . which is probably why they caved.

I'm not going to argue that private business can't do things more efficiently than the government. The private sector is allowed to cut corners in ways not available to the government. I'm just not going to argue that this is a universal benefit. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not. The thing that the government could do—if Republicans would have gotten on board—is use the purchasing power of the government to bring prices down. Nope.

In hindsight, the problems with the online implementation of the exchanges will be a tempest in a teapot. Administrative or IT problems are fixable. It's premature to say that it's a failure, a disaster, whatever, before you've even had the opportunity to judge objectively based on results.

Doesn't your depiction of the massive scale of the program support the idea that there might be snags and problems with the rollout? This is pretty much the case with any undertaking of this size.

The government being in charge of the exchanges, the implementation of the ACA, hiring thousands of new IRS agents to make sure you have insurance and the fact premiums and deductibles are going up say it's government run.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but premiums have been steadily rising for years. If you read an objective view of how insurers' costs are being approached, you'll see that the picture is, so far, mixed. Some people are going to pay more. Some people are going to pay less. More people are going to be covered. Sometimes, costs and premiums are going to rise or fall for reasons that have nothing to do with the ACA.

If the government wasn't so involved, you wouldn't have people complaining about them screwing up the healthcare system.

OK. Read that back to yourself, then consider starting again.

[The Chosen One]

In all honesty, I think a lot of people like me are waiting for the market to shift in the next few months.

There's no need to sign up and buy right out of the gate. As with anything, better to sit back and watch and see the insurance exchange do its work and companies compete at the waning last seconds for the last minute buyers.

No idea why anybody realistically thought people would be signing up and buying instantly.

It also gives them more time to fix the bugs on the website.

Facebook has hundreds of millions accounts, but not hundreds of millions of genuine individual people making accounts. The script is relatively simple for facebook, while you're dealing with 50 different exchanges on this site, and I'm sure the chinese and international hackers were just waiting in line to try and test their hand at crashing Momma America's new toy. I'm encouraged by all the traffic it's gotten. As with anything there are going to be bugs no matter who does it. If this was a private sector screw up, nobody complains because it's just part of the "growing pains", but of course since this is Obama's baby the magnifying glass is even more heavy on the screw ups.

I won't buy a playstation 4 when it comes out next month because history tells us there will be problems with the first generation release. It happened with the 360, it happened with the PS3 and I'd bet money it will happen with the XB1 and PS4.

[cajunrevenge]

I for one will not be buying obamacare. If he is going to steal from me for not doing so then so be it. More money for welfare queens.

[Tapate50]

In all honesty, I think a lot of people like me are waiting for the market to shift in the next few months.

There's no need to sign up and buy right out of the gate. As with anything, better to sit back and watch and see the insurance exchange do its work and companies compete at the waning last seconds for the last minute buyers.

No idea why anybody realistically thought people would be signing up and buying instantly.

It also gives them more time to fix the bugs on the website.

Facebook has hundreds of millions accounts, but not hundreds of millions of genuine individual people making accounts. The script is relatively simple for facebook, while you're dealing with 50 different exchanges on this site, and I'm sure the chinese and international hackers were just waiting in line to try and test their hand at crashing Momma America's new toy. I'm encouraged by all the traffic it's gotten. As with anything there are going to be bugs no matter who does it. If this was a private sector screw up, nobody complains because it's just part of the "growing pains", but of course since this is Obama's baby the magnifying glass is even more heavy on the screw ups.

I won't buy a playstation 4 when it comes out next month because history tells us there will be problems with the first generation release. It happened with the 360, it happened with the PS3 and I'd bet money it will happen with the XB1 and PS4.

That analogy doesn't add up. If this site was malfunctioning and a hatchet on the wallet people would just go elsewhere and that would be their choice. It isn't mandated we use it or incur a fine.

[sturg33]

This seems like the appropriate place for this. Maybe those who take time to watch this will understand how the Federal Reserve is a scam, dollars are not money, and the debt ceiling is a joke. I assume most won't give it the time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

[sturg33]

Good thing the clean resolution included $2 billion earmark for Kentucky. Nothing to see here guys, nothing to see.

So I did a little research on this one, since nobody seems to be able to give me a specific on why Rand Paul is corrupt. Turns out, this was a pretty epic political from the dems.

I'm convinced Obama is politically brilliant and/or the Republicans are really as big of idiots as I'm being told they are. Obama submits a budget with a 2.9 Billion dollar appropriation for a lock and dam project in Olmsted, Illinois... One of the most bipartisan spending projects of all time... Gets Dianne Feinstein and Lamar Alexander to sponsor it. And somehow it gets named the Kentucky Kickback and everyone hates the one guy who didn't have anything to do with it.

[sturg33]

Here is a little interesting fact to mull over. If we pulled out the 2005 federal budget and enacted it with no changes then we could have a 0% income tax for all Americans, 100% of them, and we wouldn't incur a single new dollar of debt over what we're going to incur this year anyways.