Goverrnment Shutdown 2013: The Obamapocalypse is here! :(

idiocracy-bang-o.gif


 
Both parties win so there's no incentive to end it quickly. Dems look like the good guys to people who have a brain and Republicans look like freedom fighters to their base.

Fun fact: Federal employees had to waste the workday Monday preparing for the shutdown. Half of Tuesday was spent answering phones saying "we are shut down."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is anyone else watching/listening to the Senate session right now? I think Tom Colburn(R-Oklahoma) just said UHC is a far better idea than Obamascare and that he prefers that system? :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont think I've ever seen conservatives so happy, and yet there shouldnt be much for them to be happy about.

(1) People are suffering

(2) They are committing electoral suicide

(3) They havent stopped ACA

In their bizarro world, they must figure at least one of these isnt true.  Alternatively, they just might be monsters.

 
Some of the Republicans are acting more delusional than ever. Rand Paul, for example, thinks they're set to win this, as if they made it over the hump in terms of public reaction. :whistle2:k  Nevermind that the public is polling more against the Republican party at this particular point than they have been in a long time.

On the other hand, the Democrats are doing themselves no favor by letting Harry Reid speak for them. Oh, well. I empathize with all the people beginning to suffer because of this lunacy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dohdough said:
Is anyone else watching/listening to the Senate session right now? I think Tom Colburn(R-Oklahoma) just said UHC is a far better idea than Obamascare and that he prefers that system? :rofl:
Click to expand...
If this is how far they're going to twist themselves into knots to hate on Obama's policies, I say we let them run with it. If it gets us true UHC, they can call it the Tea Party Patriot Kenyan Muslim Obamacare Sucks Care Act for all I care.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This doesn't affect me directly at all but it really pisses me off.  It would be nice if Congress had people with empathy for the tons of people who are unpaid and/or out of work right now.  It's too bad it's filled with sociopaths and people with the mental capacity of a 5 year old.

 
I've been traveling throughout Europe for work during all this, and it's making international news, but just because of the impact on the global economy. A situation like this is crazy for American politics, but not that unusual compared to international standards.

Unrelated, but while here I was watching RT news and George Galloway, an old favorite of mine was being interviewed on the topic of American exceptionalism and Obama's claims that basically God established our country to rule the world and everything in it. From the British perspective, this must be pure comedy, because just a couple hundred years ago, this was the discussion amongst the British and Spanish.

And even less related...Jesus...these Europeans love soccer. If this shit ever shutdown, continent-wide riots.

 
So in a couple of weeks the debt ceiling has to be raised.  If the debt ceiling isn't raised then the government defaults on the debt.  Default on the debt is unconstitutional.  Does it then follow that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional and that Obama will be able to raise it himself without Congressional authority?  A couple of years ago a similar situation happened (but they raised the debt ceiling in time), remember the talk of the 2 trillion dollar platinum coin?

edit:

By the way, it's been mentioned that there are enough votes in the house between democrats and moderate republicans to pass a budget but such a budget won't be allowed a vote because the republican's are following their "majority of the majority rule".  It's not a real rule but something made up a few decades ago to prevent the minority party from being able to submit bills for a vote.  I suggest anyone that doesn't know what the "majority of the majority" is read about it.  It's also called the "Hastert Rule".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
I'm pro coin.
Click to expand...
It would certainly be jarring to the system. The House would try to remove the President's ability to do it in the future and that bill would either fail in the Senate or be vetoed by the President and not have the votes for an override.

It would certainly solve the debt problem since they could use it to immediately pay off 2 trillion dollars in debt. Then instead of having almost 17 trillion in debt we'd have only 15 trilling. Monetizing the debt in that way wouldn't even cause immediate inflation since that money was already printed to buy treasuries (the assumption being that the 2 trillion would be used to pay off treasuries held by the Fed).

 
Hilarious that the politicians in Congress are complaining about the lack of compromise regarding anything, especially since the only thing they want is Obamacare defunded.  Where was this crap the past few years? Am I supposed to believe that now is the best time of any other for compromise in the most unproductive body of government in decades?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Funny how everyone blames the house but do not mention the senate at all.
Click to expand...
That's because the house put together a "compromise" with a continuing resolution for 90 days and in exchange they wanted a year delay for the ACA. They knew that the Democrats wouldn't go for that. It doesn't matter who's President, no one in their right mind would trade what they see as their landmark legislation for a 90 day extension on the budget. It's just sad when people watch the "news" on Fox or MSNBC and don't actually read into what's being discussed. People seriously take at face value what fox is saying - that the house of reps is trying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
Funny how everyone blames the house but do not mention the senate at all.
Click to expand...
That's because the only way the House will agree to comp is if ACA is not funded or removed.

In case you didn't know, ACA was passed by the House, Senate, Supreme Court. It's a law now. Trying to undermine it/eliminate it does not belong in a spending bill.

 
James Madison already worked all this shit out.

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
Click to expand...
Thomas Sowell also has some thoughts on the matter: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/10/04/sowell-who-shut-down-the-government/?subscriber=1

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Congress is beholden to the Supreme Court in what it cannot do, not what it can do. It's an important distinction. While the Supreme Court may rule that Obamacare is constitutional, that has no bearing on the fact that a majority of the House simply does not like it.

The true test of who is right or wrong comes November 2014, when the nation's largest and most complete survey is taken. Can you believe there are losers who don't want to participate in it?

I agree that there will never, ever be a Republican in the White House ever again, but the Democrat who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will always have that pesky majority in the House to deal with. The so-called Tea Party Republicans are not going anywhere for quite some time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man said:
It would certainly be jarring to the system. The House would try to remove the President's ability to do it in the future and that bill would either fail in the Senate or be vetoed by the President and not have the votes for an override.

It would certainly solve the debt problem since they could use it to immediately pay off 2 trillion dollars in debt. Then instead of having almost 17 trillion in debt we'd have only 15 trilling. Monetizing the debt in that way wouldn't even cause immediate inflation since that money was already printed to buy treasuries (the assumption being that the 2 trillion would be used to pay off treasuries held by the Fed).
Click to expand...
you don't need a new bill.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Funny how everyone blames the house but do not mention the senate at all.
Click to expand...
Again, Fox News does not give you good information. The Senate has a spending bill and the House won't even allow it to come up for a vote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/326673-gop-holds-firm-rejects-dem-move-to-vote-on-clean-spending-bill

Msut77 said:
you don't need a new bill.
Click to expand...
They would need a new bill to deny the ability to use platinum to make any denomination of coin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man said:
That's because the house put together a "compromise" with a continuing resolution for 90 days and in exchange they wanted a year delay for the ACA. They knew that the Democrats wouldn't go for that. It doesn't matter who's President, no one in their right mind would trade what they see as their landmark legislation for a 90 day extension on the budget. It's just sad when people watch the "news" on Fox or MSNBC and don't actually read into what's being discussed. People seriously take at face value what fox is saying - that the house of reps is trying.
Click to expand...
I am not some Fox watching schmuck. I actually get my news from a variety of news agencies including liberal sites. They are asking Obamacare to be delayed not defunded nor overturned. That to me is fair, especially when some select parties are exempt including the congress itself.

BigPopov said:
That's because the only way the House will agree to comp is if ACA is not funded or removed.

In case you didn't know, ACA was passed by the House, Senate, Supreme Court. It's a law now. Trying to undermine it/eliminate it does not belong in a spending bill.
Click to expand...
In case you did not know, democrats dominated the branches back when it was passed. You know what is a law? Patriot Act...

 
I think both strategies employed by Republicans and Democrats are valid. None of this "domestic terrorism" bullshit. Everything is constitutional and moral in my book. I mean, should it be legal for the federal government to shut down? Of course. The ability to hijack the budget process is there for a reason.

The real test is how long people can go without the federal government. A few days won't matter despite the theatrics on the evening news. Six months and that's another story.

And there lies the problem. The federal government has gotten too big and does way too much so that way too many people depend on it. I don't even think we should have a full-time legislative branch of government.

In any case, the most complete survey of what the American people think of the shutdown will happen in one year. Nothing unusual will really happen though. We'll have the few interesting races that pop up every election season but most incumbents will still win. I don't believe that it is possible to eradicate the two-party system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
I am not some Fox watching schmuck. I actually get my news from a variety of news agencies including liberal sites. They are asking Obamacare to be delayed not defunded nor overturned. That to me is fair, especially when some select parties are exempt including the congress itself.
Click to expand...
It's fair that they ask for what he believes is his key achievement to be delayed for an entire year in exchange for a 3 month continuing resolution? Explain how this is fair. Imagine this: The next president is a republican. The House of reps is majority democrats. 30 hardcore liberal dems in the house demand that taxes be raised to 90% for the top 1% or they won't pass a budget and they'll keep the government shut down for an unlimited amount of time until their demands are met. In exchange for the 90% tax rate, they'll give you a 90 day budget. That might sound "extreme" to you but I guarantee that the demands they're making in regard to Obamacare is just as extreme to the dems in power right now.

Even if the democrats were to accept this "fair" offer, what do you think happens in another 90 days?

This is a horrible precedent for our government and is leading us down a really bad path. The logical extension of this is that no law is ever settled if a single person in congress disagrees with it and you're never going to find everyone agreeing on every law. This will lead to perpetual gridlock and probably a rewrite of the constitution if this continues.

Spokker said:
I think both strategies employed by Republicans and Democrats are valid. None of this "domestic terrorism" bullshit. Everything is constitutional and moral in my book. I mean, should it be legal for the federal government to shut down? Of course. The ability to hijack the budget process is there for a reason.

The real test is how long people can go without the federal government. A few days won't matter despite the theatrics on the evening news. Six months and that's another story.

And there lies the problem. The federal government has gotten too big and does way too much so that way too many people depend on it. I don't even think we should have a full-time legislative branch of government.

In any case, the most complete survey of what the American people think of the shutdown will happen in one year. Nothing unusual will really happen though. We'll have the few interesting races that pop up every election season but most incumbents will still win. I don't believe that it is possible to eradicate the two-party system.
Click to expand...
Twice now you've written something like this. I haven't seen a single person suggest that it's illegal for them to do this. People think it's bad politics and bad for the country.

 
Nullification 2 the tea stains needs to be nipped in the bud real fast. The legality of a shut down is questionable. The debt ceiling is less ambiguous.  It is hostage taking despite what spoiler and so well "think".

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
I am not some Fox watching schmuck. I actually get my news from a variety of news agencies including liberal sites. They are asking Obamacare to be delayed not defunded nor overturned. That to me is fair, especially when some select parties are exempt including the congress itself.
Click to expand...
First, L O fucking L

Why is Congress be exempt from Obamascare anyways? TOTALLY NOT FAIR AT ALL. It's not like they have money nor employer subsidized health insurance or...oh wai

In case you did not know, democrats dominated the branches back when it was passed. You know what is a law? Patriot Act...
Click to expand...
Hmmm...if only there was a difference between what happened when people spoke out against the PATRIOT Act and for the PPACA...

Health Care...surveillance state...same shit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't Obama delay a major part of ACA for a year? How crazy to think that maybe other parts aren't ready for prime time......and any exemptions or waivers given to such a major new and untested law are BS.
 
dohdough said:
First, L O fucking L

Why is Congress be exempt from Obamascare anyways? TOTALLY NOT FAIR AT ALL. It's not like they have money nor employer subsidized health insurance or...oh wai

Hmmm...if only there was a difference between what happened when people spoke out against the PATRIOT Act and for the PPACA...

Health Care...surveillance state...same shit.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not but HuffPo is one of my most visited sites.

Yes, they do have subsidized health insurance which is something I find to be completely unfair when something like ACA is being passed.

Increased prices of health care to a critical point with no way of opting out without paying a fine. Both deal a blow to individual liberty. Fair?

Blaster man said:
It's fair that they ask for what he believes is his key achievement to be delayed for an entire year in exchange for a 3 month continuing resolution? Explain how this is fair. Imagine this: The next president is a republican. The House of reps is majority democrats. 30 hardcore liberal dems in the house demand that taxes be raised to 90% for the top 1% or they won't pass a budget and they'll keep the government shut down for an unlimited amount of time until their demands are met. In exchange for the 90% tax rate, they'll give you a 90 day budget. That might sound "extreme" to you but I guarantee that the demands they're making in regard to Obamacare is just as extreme to the dems in power right now.

Even if the democrats were to accept this "fair" offer, what do you think happens in another 90 days?

This is a horrible precedent for our government and is leading us down a really bad path. The logical extension of this is that no law is ever settled if a single person in congress disagrees with it and you're never going to find everyone agreeing on every law. This will lead to perpetual gridlock and probably a rewrite of the constitution if this continues.

Twice now you've written something like this. I haven't seen a single person suggest that it's illegal for them to do this. People think it's bad politics and bad for the country.
Click to expand...
This key achievement has been altered and parts of it have been delayed for certain key groups. You want it go in effect then let it be done so in its entirety.

I realize this is extreme to majority of democrats and many liberals all over USA but frankly this is how things work in a republic. Each representative fights for the interests of their constituency. I would expect the democrats to fight for 90% tax if they were elected based on these promises.

I completely agree with you that no single law has ever satisfied everyone and I am sure problems will arise in 90 days but what do you expect when something like ACA gets passed by democrats without any republicans voting for it? You do not need a crystal ball to see the future. If I was Obama then I would make some changes to ACA to make the republicans stfu.

 
Blaster man said:
Twice now you've written something like this. I haven't seen a single person suggest that it's illegal for them to do this. People think it's bad politics and bad for the country.
Click to expand...
I think it's a valid tactic for the minority to stand up to the majority. Of course, everybody will have an opportunity to vote them out next year. Chances are that 90% of incumbents will win, though, like always.

 
I have a hard time believing that you believe there are "changes" that can be made to ACA that would resolve Republican's concerns enough to pass a short term CR before extorting again in a few weeks as that one winds down.

To believe that the delay is a serious offer, you would have to honestly believe in that in the intervening year, Congress would work to make the law more ready or better, rather than just buying more time to repeal it and asking for another delay if they havent been able to.  If you understand the reality of the situation as stated above, then you surely must understand why the Democrats cannot possibly accept this.  Obama giving up things in exchange for keeping a functional government is not a serious negotiation.  Democrats have already conceded by accepting the Republican's spending figures straight up, which is very nearly the criminally insane Ryan budget.  "You got a nice government here, shame if something would happen to it" is not a negotiation. 

There are many things open to negotiation once Republicans put the gun down.  Republicans have refused to assign conferees to hash out the differences between the House and Senate budget for 6 months, until JUST NOW.  Democrats are absolutely right to not engage in any negotiations whatsoever. 

The employer mandate is not an important part of the law.  They can pretty much get rid of this without significant issue, if we lived in a world where the opposition wouldnt just move the goalposts and make even more demands.  The employer mandate or caps to out of pocket costs should not have been delayed.  Businesses that dont like ACA and health insurers that dont like that part of it whining and dragging their feet accordingly is not legitimate grounds for a delay.  They should be told in the politest way possible to go fuck themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now the Republican's are saying it's their way or the highway.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/congress-budget/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

If I were Obama, I would call their bluff, either give him a clean spending bill or let them saw the tree limb off that they're sitting on.  As the executive branch Obama would have a few options open to him.

1. Claim that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional since the country is constitutionally bound to pay it's debts and raise the debt ceiling himself through executive order.

2. Mint the 2 trillion dollar platinum coin.

3. Prioritize payments as revenue is received. 

I think the 3rd one would really be a way to play hardball.  Pay the debt with incoming revenue then with what's left only pay for roads, college, school, support loans, pay social security recipients, pay medicare/medicade, allow military contractors to be paid, etc, etc, etc in blue states and moderate red states/districts.  Then all the hardcore tea baggers that hate government can find out what will happen to their economy without the government intervention.  When their local economies crash and burn they'll come crying for help.

At that point, he could demand a clean spending bill, an increase in the debt ceiling, and an increase in taxes for the rich to 50%.  If they refuse to do any of those then he can let their states rot in their own little depressions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prioritizing bills as revenue comes in cant really happen, not to any meaningful degree.  The government pays millions of bills every day, and its almost entirely automated/automatic.  Theres not a mechanism in place to prioritize bills.  Without a massive overhaul of the systems that are currently in place, this cannot happen.

The administration isnt going to do to 2, and its unlikely they are going to do 1.  Both are very controversial. 

There is one and only one way out of this, and that is the break the GOP and end using these kinds of tactics.  If it doesnt end now, we'll go through the same crisis in a few weeks as the CR they eventually pass expires.  What they should do is let Republicans continue to hang themselves, even if that means default.  

I'm with Erick Erickson on this.  The government should stay closed permanently until one side unilaterally surrenders, no matter how long it takes or what the cost is.  If its clear until the 2014 elections, so be it. 

 
Dr Mario Kart said:
Prioritizing bills as revenue comes in cant really happen, not to any meaningful degree. The government pays millions of bills every day, and its almost entirely automated/automatic. Theres not a mechanism in place to prioritize bills. Without a massive overhaul of the systems that are currently in place, this cannot happen.

The administration isnt going to do to 2, and its unlikely they are going to do 1. Both are very controversial.

There is one and only one way out of this, and that is the break the GOP and end using these kinds of tactics. If it doesnt end now, we'll go through the same crisis in a few weeks as the CR they eventually pass expires. What they should do is let Republicans continue to hang themselves, even if that means default.

I'm with Erick Erickson on this. The government should stay closed permanently until one side unilaterally surrenders, no matter how long it takes or what the cost is. If its clear until the 2014 elections, so be it.
Click to expand...
Wait, you mean that the government doesn't have people that can sort payments by state? As in,

if (state == "TX")

Pay $0;

 
Spokker said:
James Madison already worked all this shit out.

Thomas Sowell also has some thoughts on the matter: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/10/04/sowell-who-shut-down-the-government/?subscriber=1

Congress is beholden to the Supreme Court in what it cannot do, not what it can do. It's an important distinction. While the Supreme Court may rule that Obamacare is constitutional, that has no bearing on the fact that a majority of the House simply does not like it.

The true test of who is right or wrong comes November 2014, when the nation's largest and most complete survey is taken. Can you believe there are losers who don't want to participate in it?

I agree that there will never, ever be a Republican in the White House ever again, but the Democrat who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will always have that pesky majority in the House to deal with. The so-called Tea Party Republicans are not going anywhere for quite some time.
Click to expand...
As Obama is fond of saying, elections have consequences and the Republicans won the House. They're exercising their constitutional powers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The true test of who is right or wrong is a midterm that no one will vote in and after which a repeal of ACA will still be impossible?  Give me a break.

And Republicans lost the House by north of a million votes.  As the demographics continue to change and the majority is extreme enough to overcome their electoral shenanigans, they are done as a party.

 
There's no rule of nature that says that the US has to be a super power. There's nothing that says the dollar has to be the reserve currency. If the republicans think default is okay at the cost of being the reserve currency that's because they have no clue what that could lead to. Things could go real bad real fast if we default. From what I gather, the tea party would happily burn the US to the ground if it means getting rid of Obamacare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saying they have the right to do what they are doing is like saying the crazy DC driver had the right to own a car. It is what they are doing with it that is the problem.

 
Congressional and Senatorial term limits? Anyone? Anyone? I get that we're effectively asking a group of inept politicians to remove their job security, but when will the people start demanding this? Someone needs to douche this rotten vagina called Congress...thoroughly.

Over the last 20yrs, I can't think of a group outside of child molesters who I think less of.

 
berzirk said:
Congressional and Senatorial term limits? Anyone? Anyone? I get that we're effectively asking a group of inept politicians to remove their job security, but when will the people start demanding this? Someone needs to douche this rotten vagina called Congress...thoroughly.

Over the last 20yrs, I can't think of a group outside of child molesters who I think less of.
Click to expand...
Terms limits wouldn't matter and are just a red herring. All you'd have is a different asshole that did the same shit as the previous asshole. I'd argue that taking money out of politics is more important than having a revolving door of different goons.
 
dilemna said:
Democrats are to blame with stupid Obamacare
Click to expand...
You realize that the shutdown and Obamacare are separate issues right? The only reason they're at all related is because the Republican's are linking them. If a Democrat lead House of Reps demands from a Republican President a tax increase to Clinton era rates or they'll shutdown the government and not raise the debt ceiling causing a default does that mean Republican's are to blame for lowering the taxes in the first place? Just checking because if Obama gives in to their demands it's just a matter of time before this is reversed. The government has never been run like this before.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shutdowns over budget disagreements are a thing that occasionally (but not frequently) happens.  One side wants spending or revenue $X billion higher than the other.  This is something that can be hashed out in committee.  

Shutdowns because one side has been unable to get rid of a law - this is an entirely new thing.   Theres no splitting the difference here.

 
Dr Mario Kart said:
Shutdowns over budget disagreements are a thing that occasionally (but not frequently) happens. One side wants spending or revenue $X billion higher than the other. This is something that can be hashed out in committee.

Shutdowns because one side has been unable to get rid of a law - this is an entirely new thing. Theres no splitting the difference here.
Click to expand...
Have the democrats tried to hash it out in the committee?

 
Correct.  19 times.  The Senate passed a budget 6 months ago, and Republicans refused to assign conferees, which is the process by which different bills passed by both houses get reconciled.  Boehner decided he wanted to go to conference for the first time, just a few days ago. 

Here is one of our favorite RINOs chastizing one of his fellow Republicans for exactly this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTifrth8qx0#t=84

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top