Government Shut Down

[Adak]

Yes, you have to excuse the Republicans. They are getting desperate. I don't have the links to it yet, but it's being reported that if Obama and the Democrats get their projected debt ceiling increase and funding, Obama's 8 years in office, will have increased our national debt:

drum roll please.....

More than all the other Presidents in our nations history, put together.

Don't worry about a compromise however. Harry Reid is in charge of the Obama negotiating team, and he told the Republicans meeting with Obama, before they came in, that there would be no negotiating until they had their debt ceiling lifted and all their funding.

I'm not sure WHY they even bothered to meet with the Republicans, if that was their rigid position. Trying to get good media coverage, I guess.

Try to make Reid and Obama look like sane men. A full time job, right there, I'm sure.

I'm not saying the Republicans have had a coherent strategy. It's been odd, to put it mildly. But at least they are trying to keep those green bills in your wallet, worth something.

Having another 50,000 people working for the feds, and another 100,000 Americans on food stamps and welfare - doesn't sound good to me.

One good plan, supported by many Conservatives, is the One Cent Solution. Where every program or department's budget is cut by 1% until the budget is balanced. (Projected to be 5 or 6 years).

All new programs would need to be fully funded upon their start, for this to work, of course.

All the details here:
http://www.onecentsolution.org/the-one-cent-solution/

To me, this is far more important than railing against Obamacare.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Adak

Obama's 8 years in office, will have increased our national debt:

drum roll please.....

More than all the other Presidents in our nations history, put together.

Adjusted for inflation?

Wow, that would really be dishonest if this number was not adjusted for inflation.

Uh oh guess what. Oh you'll never guess.

[glatt]

I remember when Reagan was in office and Time magazine ran a whole issue on the debt, and in his first term, he had increased the debt more than all the previous presidents combined. I don't remember if those dollars were adjusted for inflation. I think they were. Reagan really increased military spending and also cut taxes, which resulted in a huge increase in the deficit and ultimately the debt. It only got worse in his second term. (Or better, if you credit his deficit spending with winning the cold war.)

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

Don't worry about a compromise however. Harry Reid is in charge of the Obama negotiating team, and he told the Republicans meeting with Obama, before they came in, that there would be no negotiating until they had their debt ceiling lifted and all their funding.

--snip

this is a complete lie, you should retract it. I don't mean just ignore it and run away, like you do for your other empty headed repetitions of misstatements endlessly drilled into you by indoctrination radio. You spray these around desperately, fired off like harmless but startling chaff, distracting the attention of those in the conversation from the substance of what we should be talking about.

Harry Reid, doing his job as the Senate Majority Leader, offered compromise. He accepted the bill from the House, using the regular rules of our government stripped from it the portion that delayed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and returned the rest of the bill *INTACT* to the House for their consideration. The rest of the bill had "all their funding", but the "their" in this case was the funding suggested by the Republicans in the House. How is that Harry Reid's fault? How is it Harry Reid's numbers?

Well, as a compromise, it could very easily be seen as his "fault", his "funding". He's said "yes, ok, that funding is acceptable to me. let's do this." It was an attempt to compromise. One that was rejected, no, ignored by the House. So, no, it wasn't Reid's funding, and ultimately it wasn't Boehner's either, since it's been cast aside.

But no crying about not getting "your way". Well, I expect you'll cry anyway, but I've no sympathy for your crocodile tears.

[Adak]

That was the report from the media. I wasn't there to witness it. It IS however, what Harry Reid has stated himself, to the mainstream media, on more than one occasion.

You know he used the arcane rules of the Senate, to strip off the defunding amendment from the House bill. That is how the liberal media CBS news, reported it: "arcane".

Think about it. ONE person, can remove an amendment from a bill passed by the ENTIRE HOUSE? Are you kidding me? Does that even LOOK like a democratic government at work?

No, it does not, and I can't remember a time in the past, when it was used for this purpose, either.

Jack Lew is a political puppet appointee. There is no danger of us not being able to pay our federal debts, in full, and on time.

The firefighters have excellent health care plans, and they must have known it was dangerous to be working around the site of the fallen towers, shortly after 9/11/01. Burning plastics, fabric, heavy and fine dust (concrete, drywall, etc.), etc. These are not new dangers to a fireman. They deal with them frequently.

I'm not familiar with the saga of the 9/11 responders. Why is this still an issue, after all these years?

I have to say the "lets pay every victim's family a lot of money" idea, was a bad decision by Washington. Did we pay the families of those men who died from the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole? What about those who died from the first bomb attack on the Towers?

Of course not - likewise, any family member of a soldier who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else. Also, these 9/11 families had a LOT more money and income, than our soldiers. Their average payout (which 97% of them took), was $1.8 Million dollars, for heaven's sake!

I'm sure the responders felt like ignored red-headed step kids, looking at what the families received.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Think about it. ONE person, can remove an amendment from a bill passed by the ENTIRE HOUSE? Are you kidding me? Does that even LOOK like a democratic government at work?

Neither is it when the leader of the entire House of Representatives holds up passage of legislation until a minority of one party in the House is satisfied when he knows that a majority of the entire house will pass it.

Neither was it when individual Republicans blocked multiple calls for a budget conference earlier this year that might have avoided the brinksmanship.

If you don't like Congresses rules, tell your friends to stop abusing them.

Originally Posted by Adak

I have to say the "lets pay every victim's family a lot of money" idea, was a bad decision by Washington. Did we pay the families of those men who died from the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole? What about those who died from the first bomb attack on the Towers?

Of course not - likewise, any family member of a soldier who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

President Barack Obama signed legislation to resume paying death benefits to the families of U.S. military personnel that Congress passed after the aid had lapsed because of the government shutdown.
Lawmakers approved the measure even as there was disagreement about the need for it. The Defense Department earlier this week had contracted with the Fisher House Foundation, which supports military families, to make the $100,000 payments for the duration of the government shutdown.

So, $100K to be paid to the families of those killed by enemies of this country. I would argue the 9/11 responders were in that category. Was the response too great and the results unbalanced? Maybe. I did not realize, Adak, that you would let your inner Communist out and insist on complete parity amongst payments to the proletariat. How does one spell RINO?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Neither is it when the leader of the entire House of Representatives holds up passage of legislation until a minority of one party in the House is satisfied when he knows that a majority of the entire house will pass it.

That is done frequently in both the House and Senate, by both parties. Nothing arcane about it.

Neither was it when individual Republicans blocked multiple calls for a budget conference earlier this year that might have avoided the brinksmanship.

If you don't like Congresses rules, tell your friends to stop abusing them.

We were headed for the brink anyway. The Democrats under Reid and Pelosi are very uncompromising. That causes the Republicans to adopt a similarly uncompromising point of view. The clash of the two was bound to happen.

Right after you tell Obama to quit breaking the law, by making appointments directly, without the required Congressional approval, when the Congress is still technically in session.

Any Republican President would have done that, they'd have faced a Special Investigator, at least.

For Obama -- crickets, of course.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

That is done frequently in both the House and Senate, by both parties. Nothing arcane about it.

It is never done in Congress when the results are to intentionally make America fail.