The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I think anyone who looks at this situation and says "our side is winning" and/or "their side is losing" is part of the problem.

bingo

You're both right. However, this is not the same as suggesting that there's one side who deserves more of the blame for this mess than the other side.

I disagree. I think they are both wrong. And a shutdown means that neither side is doing a good job.

Now if you want to run around shouting, "Yay! My side is incompetent, but slightly less incompetent than the other guys!", that's cool.

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

The bolded statement is simply incorrect, and I really wish people stop repeating it.

It's not true because there is no way that Obama and the Dems can compromise with the demands set forth. The demands set forth by the House, which basically involved the dismantling of Obamacare, were completely unreasonable. They were designed to be unreasonable. They were not offered with the hope of a give and take negotiation. Furthermore, by placing these demands within the context of a threat to shut down the government and damage the economy, they put Obama in an impossible situation, in which if he agreed to negotiate it would be akin to the surrender of his Presidency. And again this was by design.

I'm sorry you can't see this. But both sides are not at fault.

I'm not going to get pulled back into a political argument. I've stated here many times that I do not have a "side" in this. And as a impartial observer, my opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Please note that I have said "my opinion."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But it's not supported by the facts.

 

[Scoresman]

I think anyone who looks at this situation and says "our side is winning" and/or "their side is losing" is part of the problem.

bingo

You're both right. However, this is not the same as suggesting that there's one side who deserves more of the blame for this mess than the other side.

I disagree. I think they are both wrong. And a shutdown means that neither side is doing a good job.

Now if you want to run around shouting, "Yay! My side is incompetent, but slightly less incompetent than the other guys!", that's cool.

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

The bolded statement is simply incorrect, and I really wish people stop repeating it.

It's not true because there is no way that Obama and the Dems can compromise with the demands set forth. The demands set forth by the House, which basically involved the dismantling of Obamacare, were completely unreasonable. They were designed to be unreasonable. They were not offered with the hope of a give and take negotiation. Furthermore, by placing these demands within the context of a threat to shut down the government and damage the economy, they put Obama in an impossible situation, in which if he agreed to negotiate it would be akin to the surrender of his Presidency. And again this was by design.

I'm sorry you can't see this. But both sides are not at fault.

I'm not going to get pulled back into a political argument. I've stated here many times that I do not have a "side" in this. And as a impartial observer, my opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Please note that I have said "my opinion."

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

I'm repeating it because it's true.

Dems should not be faulted for not compromising. What the republicans are doing is basically taking their ball and going home in a fit of sour grapes over not getting their way through proper governmental processes. . For the dems to compromise would be accepting that this sort of thing is ok.

 

[drummer]

I think anyone who looks at this situation and says "our side is winning" and/or "their side is losing" is part of the problem.

bingo

You're both right. However, this is not the same as suggesting that there's one side who deserves more of the blame for this mess than the other side.

I disagree. I think they are both wrong. And a shutdown means that neither side is doing a good job.

Now if you want to run around shouting, "Yay! My side is incompetent, but slightly less incompetent than the other guys!", that's cool.

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

The bolded statement is simply incorrect, and I really wish people stop repeating it.

It's not true because there is no way that Obama and the Dems can compromise with the demands set forth. The demands set forth by the House, which basically involved the dismantling of Obamacare, were completely unreasonable. They were designed to be unreasonable. They were not offered with the hope of a give and take negotiation. Furthermore, by placing these demands within the context of a threat to shut down the government and damage the economy, they put Obama in an impossible situation, in which if he agreed to negotiate it would be akin to the surrender of his Presidency. And again this was by design.

I'm sorry you can't see this. But both sides are not at fault.

I'm not going to get pulled back into a political argument. I've stated here many times that I do not have a "side" in this. And as a impartial observer, my opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Please note that I have said "my opinion."

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

I'm repeating it because it's true.

Dems should not be faulted for not compromising. What the republicans are doing is basically taking their ball and going home in a fit of sour grapes over not getting their way through proper governmental processes. . For the dems to compromise would be accepting that this sort of thing is ok.

The battle lines have be drawn way before this latest skirmish. I blame the Dems for being gutless towards the Tea Party caucus. Mostly because they sit back quietly and let Obama take all the heat.

 

[Scoresman]

I think anyone who looks at this situation and says "our side is winning" and/or "their side is losing" is part of the problem.

bingo

You're both right. However, this is not the same as suggesting that there's one side who deserves more of the blame for this mess than the other side.

I disagree. I think they are both wrong. And a shutdown means that neither side is doing a good job.

Now if you want to run around shouting, "Yay! My side is incompetent, but slightly less incompetent than the other guys!", that's cool.

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

The bolded statement is simply incorrect, and I really wish people stop repeating it.

It's not true because there is no way that Obama and the Dems can compromise with the demands set forth. The demands set forth by the House, which basically involved the dismantling of Obamacare, were completely unreasonable. They were designed to be unreasonable. They were not offered with the hope of a give and take negotiation. Furthermore, by placing these demands within the context of a threat to shut down the government and damage the economy, they put Obama in an impossible situation, in which if he agreed to negotiate it would be akin to the surrender of his Presidency. And again this was by design.

I'm sorry you can't see this. But both sides are not at fault.

I'm not going to get pulled back into a political argument. I've stated here many times that I do not have a "side" in this. And as a impartial observer, my opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Please note that I have said "my opinion."

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

I'm repeating it because it's true.

Dems should not be faulted for not compromising. What the republicans are doing is basically taking their ball and going home in a fit of sour grapes over not getting their way through proper governmental processes. . For the dems to compromise would be accepting that this sort of thing is ok.

This attitude is why you are an idiot. People like you only make the situation worse.

that's the second time you resort to a personal attack instead of showing a counter point. Probably because you know you have none.

 

[Thunderlips]

What they should do is settle this at the voting booth.......oh wait a minute....they already did.

Hopefully, when the Republican Party crumbles over this.....some of the more moderates (I like to think of them as North East Republicans) reach out to more Conservative Democrats (I like to think of them as MidWest Democrats) and they get a party going where normal, middle of the road Americans can feel comfortable (I like to think that they'd call it the Lettuce Party).

 

[Scoresman]

I think anyone who looks at this situation and says "our side is winning" and/or "their side is losing" is part of the problem.

bingo

You're both right. However, this is not the same as suggesting that there's one side who deserves more of the blame for this mess than the other side.

I disagree. I think they are both wrong. And a shutdown means that neither side is doing a good job.

Now if you want to run around shouting, "Yay! My side is incompetent, but slightly less incompetent than the other guys!", that's cool.

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

The bolded statement is simply incorrect, and I really wish people stop repeating it.

It's not true because there is no way that Obama and the Dems can compromise with the demands set forth. The demands set forth by the House, which basically involved the dismantling of Obamacare, were completely unreasonable. They were designed to be unreasonable. They were not offered with the hope of a give and take negotiation. Furthermore, by placing these demands within the context of a threat to shut down the government and damage the economy, they put Obama in an impossible situation, in which if he agreed to negotiate it would be akin to the surrender of his Presidency. And again this was by design.

I'm sorry you can't see this. But both sides are not at fault.

I'm not going to get pulled back into a political argument. I've stated here many times that I do not have a "side" in this. And as a impartial observer, my opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Please note that I have said "my opinion."

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

I'm repeating it because it's true.

Dems should not be faulted for not compromising. What the republicans are doing is basically taking their ball and going home in a fit of sour grapes over not getting their way through proper governmental processes. . For the dems to compromise would be accepting that this sort of thing is ok.

The battle lines have be drawn way before this latest skirmish. I blame the Dems for being gutless towards the Tea Party caucus. Mostly because they sit back quietly and let Obama take all the heat.

Republicans are entirely to blame, and Dems should not compromise, because there is no compromise to be had. The ACA is law, not a bill up for vote

Democrats already compromised - when the bill was being drafted and before it was put into law.

 

[bostonfred]

I blame the Dems for being gutless towards the Tea Party caucus. Mostly because they sit back quietly and let Obama take all the heat.

Do you actually believe that Obama is the only Democrat who has spoken on this issue? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking if you really believe what you just said.

 

[Sand]

So have any of the libtards started calling Boner a terrorist yet?

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer likened House Republicans to suicide bombers, kidnappers and arsonists in a single interview on Thursday. "What we're not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest,"

I knew it... awesome

Not only is the metaphor of taking hostages accurate for what's been going on, but it's been used by people on both sides to describe it.The most colorful metaphor I read was a California Republican rep calling his fellow Republicans lemmings with suicide vests. And that the day after the shutdown began the Republican party would be Long Duk Dong at the end of 16 Candles. They'd wake up, having passed out, in their car crashed on the front lawn.

It's not the metaphor which is ridiculous. It's how people who are supposed to be adults are acting. The are the same people who were trying to argue two years ago that there would be no consequence to the US defaulting on its debt. Basically, they have no place ordering off the adult menu, much less be in a position to influence national policy. And the current stand-off is hostage taking, pure and simple.

No. What they are doing is not the equivalent of suicide bombers. That metaphor is horrific and inappropriate. And it's not "okay because both sides do it."

What they are doing is 100% political and no where near going out in the streets and bombing random people violently. You should know better.

It's pretty rare that I agree with JoeT, but I do on this.

I actually think it's OK, though a bit extreme, to use the phrase "hostage-taking" in reference to the shutdown. It is NOT okay to use phrases like "bombs strapped to chest", etc. That's rhetoric that we really don't need coming from the White House.

They want to destroy the economy for political gain.

Exactly - wait, you are talking Democrats, right?

Democrats have created a massive monetary hole for us to try and cover up here and have absolutely zero interest in curbing that spending. None. They are driving us into the ground. Republicans have given up a tremendous amount of political capital (as can be seen in numerous polls, etc.) over the short term effects of a shutdown. They have created short term pain (furloughs) and given up lots of political currency over the debacle of Obamacare. Why do this? Simply put, because long term this shutdown may bear fruit that allows spending increases to slow to the point that we may be able to climb out of this.

The rest of this is political theater. The name calling, the WWII monument shutdown, Reid putting his foot in his mouth over kids with cancer... Just theater. Long term this fight needed to happen.

 

[drummer]

I blame the Dems for being gutless towards the Tea Party caucus. Mostly because they sit back quietly and let Obama take all the heat.

Do you actually believe that Obama is the only Democrat who has spoken on this issue? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking if you really believe what you just said.

When it comes to Health Care Reform, I don't think Baucus did him any favors. Of course, Baucus was bought by the medical lobby, so there's that. Howard Dean and the progressive party be damned.

 

[Slapdash]

So have any of the libtards started calling Boner a terrorist yet?

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer likened House Republicans to suicide bombers, kidnappers and arsonists in a single interview on Thursday. "What we're not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest,"

I knew it... awesome

Not only is the metaphor of taking hostages accurate for what's been going on, but it's been used by people on both sides to describe it.The most colorful metaphor I read was a California Republican rep calling his fellow Republicans lemmings with suicide vests. And that the day after the shutdown began the Republican party would be Long Duk Dong at the end of 16 Candles. They'd wake up, having passed out, in their car crashed on the front lawn.

It's not the metaphor which is ridiculous. It's how people who are supposed to be adults are acting. The are the same people who were trying to argue two years ago that there would be no consequence to the US defaulting on its debt. Basically, they have no place ordering off the adult menu, much less be in a position to influence national policy. And the current stand-off is hostage taking, pure and simple.

No. What they are doing is not the equivalent of suicide bombers. That metaphor is horrific and inappropriate. And it's not "okay because both sides do it."

What they are doing is 100% political and no where near going out in the streets and bombing random people violently. You should know better.

It's pretty rare that I agree with JoeT, but I do on this.

I actually think it's OK, though a bit extreme, to use the phrase "hostage-taking" in reference to the shutdown. It is NOT okay to use phrases like "bombs strapped to chest", etc. That's rhetoric that we really don't need coming from the White House.

They want to destroy the economy for political gain.

Exactly - wait, you are talking Democrats, right?

Democrats have created a massive monetary hole for us to try and cover up here and have absolutely zero interest in curbing that spending. None. They are driving us into the ground. Republicans have given up a tremendous amount of political capital (as can be seen in numerous polls, etc.) over the short term effects of a shutdown. They have created short term pain (furloughs) and given up lots of political currency over the debacle of Obamacare. Why do this? Simply put, because long term this shutdown may bear fruit that allows spending increases to slow to the point that we may be able to climb out of this.

The rest of this is political theater. The name calling, the WWII monument shutdown, Reid putting his foot in his mouth over kids with cancer... Just theater. Long term this fight needed to happen.

It is pretty laughable to suggest the GOP is so concered about the debt, or at all.

 

[The Commish]

I think anyone who looks at this situation and says "our side is winning" and/or "their side is losing" is part of the problem.

bingo

It's a nice sentiment, but the fact is that when someone does something stupid they need to get called out on it. If we always fall back on, "yeah, but the other side is stupid sometimes too!", the idiots in both parties just get stronger and stronger.

None of us quoted here are saying this. We hold both sides accountable. One side might be more bat#### crazy than the other at the moment but it's their job as one unit to get things done. That's not happening. They can make excuses all they want. In the end, it's their job to get things done.

 

[snogger]

What they should do is settle this at the voting booth.......oh wait a minute....they already did.

Hopefully, when the Republican Party crumbles over this.....some of the more moderates (I like to think of them as North East Republicans) reach out to more Conservative Democrats (I like to think of them as MidWest Democrats) and they get a party going where normal, middle of the road Americans can feel comfortable (I like to think that they'd call it the Lettuce Party).

Please tell me you don't believe the Democrats are any more sympathetic to the Middle class then the Republicans..

If so.. you might want to check out which states tax the middle class the most..

.

 

[jonessed]

I don't like Reid calling Boehner a "coward". I don't think that's helpful.

The #### hit the fan when Reid started releasing private communications between the two of them. There is no way they can work together at this point.

 

[msommer]

The other issue is the gerrymandering. Ironically both Republicans and Democrats worked together to make this happen. But the reality is that "safe seats" makes compromise unlikely and polarized politics inevitable. It gives far greater power to extremist attitudes than they should have based on the polls.

How can we resolve this? Yankee? Anyone?

Abandon districts, have x number of seats per state, equal to the number of districts today, hand those out to the x who gets most votes. Votes cast on a party as opposed to an individual can be used by the party to boost individuals they want to get in. Prior to each election each party provides a prioritized list of candidates. I suppose this could be done on county level as well.

Not perfect, but abolishes 'safe' seats

 

[bostonfred]

I blame the Dems for being gutless towards the Tea Party caucus. Mostly because they sit back quietly and let Obama take all the heat.

Do you actually believe that Obama is the only Democrat who has spoken on this issue? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking if you really believe what you just said.

When it comes to Health Care Reform, I don't think Baucus did him any favors. Of course, Baucus was bought by the medical lobby, so there's that. Howard Dean and the progressive party be damned.

I agree with this, but I don't know why you quoted my question when saying it. I was asking you if you actually believe that Obama is the only Democrat who has spoken on this issue? I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was asking if you really believe what you just said.

 

[The Commish]

So have any of the libtards started calling Boner a terrorist yet?

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer likened House Republicans to suicide bombers, kidnappers and arsonists in a single interview on Thursday. "What we're not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest,"

I knew it... awesome

Not only is the metaphor of taking hostages accurate for what's been going on, but it's been used by people on both sides to describe it.The most colorful metaphor I read was a California Republican rep calling his fellow Republicans lemmings with suicide vests. And that the day after the shutdown began the Republican party would be Long Duk Dong at the end of 16 Candles. They'd wake up, having passed out, in their car crashed on the front lawn.

It's not the metaphor which is ridiculous. It's how people who are supposed to be adults are acting. The are the same people who were trying to argue two years ago that there would be no consequence to the US defaulting on its debt. Basically, they have no place ordering off the adult menu, much less be in a position to influence national policy. And the current stand-off is hostage taking, pure and simple.

No. What they are doing is not the equivalent of suicide bombers. That metaphor is horrific and inappropriate. And it's not "okay because both sides do it."

What they are doing is 100% political and no where near going out in the streets and bombing random people violently. You should know better.

It's pretty rare that I agree with JoeT, but I do on this.

I actually think it's OK, though a bit extreme, to use the phrase "hostage-taking" in reference to the shutdown. It is NOT okay to use phrases like "bombs strapped to chest", etc. That's rhetoric that we really don't need coming from the White House.

They want to destroy the economy for political gain.

Exactly - wait, you are talking Democrats, right?

Democrats have created a massive monetary hole for us to try and cover up here and have absolutely zero interest in curbing that spending. None. They are driving us into the ground. Republicans have given up a tremendous amount of political capital (as can be seen in numerous polls, etc.) over the short term effects of a shutdown. They have created short term pain (furloughs) and given up lots of political currency over the debacle of Obamacare. Why do this? Simply put, because long term this shutdown may bear fruit that allows spending increases to slow to the point that we may be able to climb out of this.

The rest of this is political theater. The name calling, the WWII monument shutdown, Reid putting his foot in his mouth over kids with cancer... Just theater. Long term this fight needed to happen.

There is ZERO evidence that either party is interested in curbing spending. That's part of this problem and the fact that they are just sitting around pointing fingers rather than addressing issues is nauseating. Somehow people think it's a "win" to look at these events in a vacuum even though it does ZERO good from a practical problem solving standpoint. The only "good" here is the ability to point the fingers.

 

[17seconds]

I like Boehner as a person, and I'm amazed he hasn't stepped down by now. I don't feel he believes anything he's saying or doing in this mess - he's just a traditional Republican caught in the middle. That does make him rather spineless.

His blood pressure must be through the roof dealing with this civil war within his party the last couple of years.

 

[Sand]

The other issue is the gerrymandering. Ironically both Republicans and Democrats worked together to make this happen. But the reality is that "safe seats" makes compromise unlikely and polarized politics inevitable. It gives far greater power to extremist attitudes than they should have based on the polls.

How can we resolve this? Yankee? Anyone?

Abandon districts, have x number of seats per state, equal to the number of districts today, hand those out to the x who gets most votes. Votes cast on a party as opposed to an individual can be used by the party to boost individuals they want to get in. Prior to each election each party provides a prioritized list of candidates. I suppose this could be done on county level as well.

Not perfect, but abolishes 'safe' seats

Algorithmically determine districts to remove the ability to gerrymander. Obviously difficult to do as the DOJ would immediately try to block in the south under the Voting Rights Act.

 

[Sand]

Democrats have created a massive monetary hole for us to try and cover up here and have absolutely zero interest in curbing that spending. None. They are driving us into the ground. Republicans have given up a tremendous amount of political capital (as can be seen in numerous polls, etc.) over the short term effects of a shutdown. They have created short term pain (furloughs) and given up lots of political currency over the debacle of Obamacare. Why do this? Simply put, because long term this shutdown may bear fruit that allows spending increases to slow to the point that we may be able to climb out of this.

The rest of this is political theater. The name calling, the WWII monument shutdown, Reid putting his foot in his mouth over kids with cancer... Just theater. Long term this fight needed to happen.

There is ZERO evidence that either party is interested in curbing spending. That's part of this problem and the fact that they are just sitting around pointing fingers rather than addressing issues is nauseating. Somehow people think it's a "win" to look at these events in a vacuum even though it does ZERO good from a practical problem solving standpoint. The only "good" here is the ability to point the fingers.

True, neither seem to want to curb spending in normal times (though there is a very good reason DC is ultra-Democratic - it has to do with the propensity to spend), though the rhetoric is there. And the spending curves definitely favor Republicans as slightly better at spending restraint. At the very least if Obamacare is blocked a multi-trillion dollar expense goes away, so there is that.

 

[The Commish]

Democrats have created a massive monetary hole for us to try and cover up here and have absolutely zero interest in curbing that spending. None. They are driving us into the ground. Republicans have given up a tremendous amount of political capital (as can be seen in numerous polls, etc.) over the short term effects of a shutdown. They have created short term pain (furloughs) and given up lots of political currency over the debacle of Obamacare. Why do this? Simply put, because long term this shutdown may bear fruit that allows spending increases to slow to the point that we may be able to climb out of this.

The rest of this is political theater. The name calling, the WWII monument shutdown, Reid putting his foot in his mouth over kids with cancer... Just theater. Long term this fight needed to happen.

There is ZERO evidence that either party is interested in curbing spending. That's part of this problem and the fact that they are just sitting around pointing fingers rather than addressing issues is nauseating. Somehow people think it's a "win" to look at these events in a vacuum even though it does ZERO good from a practical problem solving standpoint. The only "good" here is the ability to point the fingers.

True, neither seem to want to curb spending, though the rhetoric is there. At the very least if Obamacare is blocked a multi-trillion dollar expense goes away, so there is that.

This even remains to be seen.

 

[jonessed]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

 

[Thunderlips]

What they should do is settle this at the voting booth.......oh wait a minute....they already did.

Hopefully, when the Republican Party crumbles over this.....some of the more moderates (I like to think of them as North East Republicans) reach out to more Conservative Democrats (I like to think of them as MidWest Democrats) and they get a party going where normal, middle of the road Americans can feel comfortable (I like to think that they'd call it the Lettuce Party).

Please tell me you don't believe the Democrats are any more sympathetic to the Middle class then the Republicans..

If so.. you might want to check out which states tax the middle class the most..

.

Young Buck, where did I give you that idea?

 

[drummer]

I blame the Dems for being gutless towards the Tea Party caucus. Mostly because they sit back quietly and let Obama take all the heat.

Do you actually believe that Obama is the only Democrat who has spoken on this issue? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking if you really believe what you just said.

When it comes to Health Care Reform, I don't think Baucus did him any favors. Of course, Baucus was bought by the medical lobby, so there's that. Howard Dean and the progressive party be damned.

I agree with this, but I don't know why you quoted my question when saying it. I was asking you if you actually believe that Obama is the only Democrat who has spoken on this issue? I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was asking if you really believe what you just said.

Speaking out isn't acting, and the Dems want to keep their seats too. If the Dems' play is to let the Tea Party caucus do the GOP in by their actions, then that's just taking a backseat until the smoke clears. But now that Obama is in his second term, he can be the de-facto point man while others don't have to risk their own political careers.

The Dems have also been gutless towards Obama's Neo-Con policies that also hurt our own civil liberties, but that's another thread.

If the Dems can't win back the House after the Tea Party mess (which they couldn't win against recently), then who has accomplished more?

Gridlock goes both ways.

 

[timschochet]

Democrats have created a massive monetary hole for us to try and cover up here and have absolutely zero interest in curbing that spending. None. They are driving us into the ground. Republicans have given up a tremendous amount of political capital (as can be seen in numerous polls, etc.) over the short term effects of a shutdown. They have created short term pain (furloughs) and given up lots of political currency over the debacle of Obamacare. Why do this? Simply put, because long term this shutdown may bear fruit that allows spending increases to slow to the point that we may be able to climb out of this.

The rest of this is political theater. The name calling, the WWII monument shutdown, Reid putting his foot in his mouth over kids with cancer... Just theater. Long term this fight needed to happen.

There is ZERO evidence that either party is interested in curbing spending. That's part of this problem and the fact that they are just sitting around pointing fingers rather than addressing issues is nauseating. Somehow people think it's a "win" to look at these events in a vacuum even though it does ZERO good from a practical problem solving standpoint. The only "good" here is the ability to point the fingers.

True, neither seem to want to curb spending, though the rhetoric is there. At the very least if Obamacare is blocked a multi-trillion dollar expense goes away, so there is that.

But it's not going away. That's what you seem to be missing.

Obamacare was originally introduced by Republicans as a compromise between the free market and the Democratic proposal for universal health care. Now that it's in place, it's too late. Any changes to it will involve more government involvement not less.

 

[Doug B]

So ... let's say Boehner acts more or less unlaterally and calls a clean CR bill for a vote. By what process would he then involuntarily lose his SOH position?

EDIT: I didn't think there were enough Tea Party Congressmen (only 40 or so, right?) to somehow vote Boener out. So even if there were some kind of no-confidence vote among strictly the Republican Congressmen ... wouldn't Boener still come out on top by a score of something like 180-40?

Bump. Anyone know how it plays out for him personally if Boehner says "eff it" and caves?

(Guess that's another day of Civics I skipped out on)

 

[Doug B]

I like Boehner as a person, and I'm amazed he hasn't stepped down by now.

I'd rather that he stay on until he's forced out (however that happens). Not sure how likely it would actually be to have a Tea Party-beholden Speaker succeed Boehner ... but that really can't be risked unless there are no other options.

 

[Doug B]

Obviously difficult to do as the DOJ would immediately try to block in the south under the Voting Rights Act.

Thought this act sunset earlier this year?

 

[drummer]

I like Boehner as a person, and I'm amazed he hasn't stepped down by now.

I'd rather that he stay on until he's forced out (however that happens). Not sure how likely it would actually be to have a Tea Party-beholden Speaker succeed Boehner ... but that really can't be risked unless there are no other options.

Cantor as SOH would be even worse than Boehner. That dude is a weenie.

 

[Slapdash]

Obviously difficult to do as the DOJ would immediately try to block in the south under the Voting Rights Act.

Thought this act sunset earlier this year?

I think it was just he part where certain states had to be cleared by the federal government before making changes. The DOJ can and still do sue under the VRA as they are doing to NC.

 

[timschochet]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

I don't believe this. In the late 90s Tom Delay got together with some of his opponents in the Democratic party and they did a whole bunch of gerrymandering. Prior to that, there were far less "safe seats", and extremists had much less influence.

Back in the 90s, some Democrats thought that the House Republicans led by Newt Gingrich were extremists. But they weren't. They were traditional fiscally conservative Republicans. They were nothing like the Tea Party is now. The "Tea Party" faction of the conservative movement back then was relegated to militia groups and pulling crap like Ruby Ridge- they had no role in the leadership of the Republican party. Now, thanks in part to gerrymandering and thanks in part to a visceral reaction to the election of Barack Obama, suddenly the Tea Party types have real influence, and we can see how damaging that has been.

 

[bagger]

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

Lifelong Republican voter here:

There are no reasonable compromises for Democrats to make from their own perspective. Democrats should treat all aspects of Obamacare as inviolable, or else this same shutdown tactic will be used in the future (by either party).

Piggybacking boutique spending bills onto the annual appropriations bill should be forbidden going forward. Probably needs a constitutional amendment to enforce that, but still. What's going on now is dirty pool, and should be considered by all and sundry as out-of-bounds.

this is exactly right. NOBODY should want the dems to cave because if they do this then becomes a viable tool for people in both parties to use on any issue they dont like, even if it is law.abortion? shut govt down.

social security? shut govt down.

medicare? shut govt down.

spotted owl? shut govt down.

this is a very dangerous precedent to set. for the good of the country in the long term the dems have to make a stand that this tactic is completely inappropriate to be used as a negotiating tool just because you have sour grapes of some thing LEGAL that you dont like.

 

[drummer]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

I don't believe this. In the late 90s Tom Delay got together with some of his opponents in the Democratic party and they did a whole bunch of gerrymandering. Prior to that, there were far less "safe seats", and extremists had much less influence.

Back in the 90s, some Democrats thought that the House Republicans led by Newt Gingrich were extremists. But they weren't. They were traditional fiscally conservative Republicans. They were nothing like the Tea Party is now. The "Tea Party" faction of the conservative movement back then was relegated to militia groups and pulling crap like Ruby Ridge- they had no role in the leadership of the Republican party. Now, thanks in part to gerrymandering and thanks in part to a visceral reaction to the election of Barack Obama, suddenly the Tea Party types have real influence, and we can see how damaging that has been.

The Tea Party has $$ influence. Big time. Take away that $$, and then see where they stand.

 

[jonessed]

Obviously difficult to do as the DOJ would immediately try to block in the south under the Voting Rights Act.

Thought this act sunset earlier this year?

Holder is still trying to hang on with what's left.

 

[snogger]

What they should do is settle this at the voting booth.......oh wait a minute....they already did.

Hopefully, when the Republican Party crumbles over this.....some of the more moderates (I like to think of them as North East Republicans) reach out to more Conservative Democrats (I like to think of them as MidWest Democrats) and they get a party going where normal, middle of the road Americans can feel comfortable (I like to think that they'd call it the Lettuce Party).

Please tell me you don't believe the Democrats are any more sympathetic to the Middle class then the Republicans..

If so.. you might want to check out which states tax the middle class the most..

.

Young Buck, where did I give you that idea?

The Bold part gave me pause...

But in all seriousness..

Until a REAL 3rd party rises up and voters start looking at the policies those holding office stand for and not the party they are affiliated with the country will continue it's slide.. :(

 

[msommer]

Super dumb question. Say you're a family of 4. How much will obamacare cost? I know the waiver is 1% or something.

Depends.

Here's a calculator to help you figure out the basics.

Holy crap.

According to that the government silver plan would cost me approximately 4 times what I'm currently paying for my employer provided plan.

It was 3X for me, but if you take what my employer pays + what I pay then it is less than 1/2. It said it was about $11K a year and my employer and I pay $24K. I pay $325/mo for medical.

I didn't look at gold what I have now is better than silver.

This post has been largely if not completely ignored.

Here's what I would at least consider if I was your employer.

"I now have an opportunity to get out of that expensive health insurance. I pay 20k a year for this stuff, because 17seconds is a great employee that I would like to keep. How about I talk to him and give him a raise of 15k - after tax, together with his current medical payments, he can get the silver plan with money left over. Sure it's not as good as what we have today, but if he wants gold, which is better than what he has today (I suppose), he can then evaluate if he wants to spends his raise+savings and some more cash on that. Freedom of choice. I love America (and by the way I just saved 25% of my expense base from medicare towards my bottom line - and 17seconds is probably pretty happy too. Maybe I can start thinking about expansion...)"

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

So ... let's say Boehner acts more or less unlaterally and calls a clean CR bill for a vote. By what process would he then involuntarily lose his SOH position?

EDIT: I didn't think there were enough Tea Party Congressmen (only 40 or so, right?) to somehow vote Boener out. So even if there were some kind of no-confidence vote among strictly the Republican Congressmen ... wouldn't Boener still come out on top by a score of something like 180-40?

Bump. Anyone know how it plays out for him personally if Boehner says "eff it" and caves?

(Guess that's another day of Civics I skipped out on)

The House would elects a new one.

 

[otello]

The other issue is the gerrymandering. Ironically both Republicans and Democrats worked together to make this happen. But the reality is that "safe seats" makes compromise unlikely and polarized politics inevitable. It gives far greater power to extremist attitudes than they should have based on the polls.

How can we resolve this? Yankee? Anyone?

I believe that the way Iowa handles redistricting is worth considering.http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Redistricting_in_Iowa

 

[Scoresman]

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

Lifelong Republican voter here:

There are no reasonable compromises for Democrats to make from their own perspective. Democrats should treat all aspects of Obamacare as inviolable, or else this same shutdown tactic will be used in the future (by either party).

Piggybacking boutique spending bills onto the annual appropriations bill should be forbidden going forward. Probably needs a constitutional amendment to enforce that, but still. What's going on now is dirty pool, and should be considered by all and sundry as out-of-bounds.

this is exactly right. NOBODY should want the dems to cave because if they do this then becomes a viable tool for people in both parties to use on any issue they dont like, even if it is law.abortion? shut govt down.

social security? shut govt down.

medicare? shut govt down.

spotted owl? shut govt down.

this is a very dangerous precedent to set. for the good of the country in the long term the dems have to make a stand that this tactic is completely inappropriate to be used as a negotiating tool just because you have sour grapes of some thing LEGAL that you dont like.

Exactly.

There's also the fact that the Dems already compromised plenty on Obamacare. There's been literally nothing but compromise with the ACA since it was first proposed. There's been compromise after compromise with the Republicans on the budget, entitlements, revenues, everything. Republicans have been playing this zero-sum game for years where they refuse to give an inch. But now that the Democrats are in a position where they can't yield without ruining the democratic process Republicans start crying about how they won't compromise.

The Republican idea of compromise is "you give us what we want, and we'll allow the government to function". It's completely insane

 

[shader]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

Exactly. I can't believe that most people in this thread can't see this. The republican representatives are doing a great job of representing their base. Have any of you guys looked at facebook? Go to conservative blogs and message boards. There are millions of people that are convinced that Obamacare is the end of the US and that it is being hoisted on the public by a socialist, marxist regime. So the fact that their representatives are trying to block Obamacare shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[jonessed]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

I don't believe this. In the late 90s Tom Delay got together with some of his opponents in the Democratic party and they did a whole bunch of gerrymandering. Prior to that, there were far less "safe seats", and extremists had much less influence.Back in the 90s, some Democrats thought that the House Republicans led by Newt Gingrich were extremists. But they weren't. They were traditional fiscally conservative Republicans. They were nothing like the Tea Party is now. The "Tea Party" faction of the conservative movement back then was relegated to militia groups and pulling crap like Ruby Ridge- they had no role in the leadership of the Republican party. Now, thanks in part to gerrymandering and thanks in part to a visceral reaction to the election of Barack Obama, suddenly the Tea Party types have real influence, and we can see how damaging that has been.

The country is more polarized now than it was 15+ years ago.

The healthcare law was passed without a single Republican vote in the Senate. If they couldn't get Snowe to vote for it they really weren't trying very hard to get Republican support of any kind.

Your hatred of the Tea Party makes this an issue you can't discuss rationally.

 

[Slapdash]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

Exactly. I can't believe that most people in this thread can't see this. The republican representatives are doing a great job of representing their base. Have any of you guys looked at facebook? Go to conservative blogs and message boards. There are millions of people that are convinced that Obamacare is the end of the US and that it is being hoisted on the public by a socialist, marxist regime. So the fact that their representatives are trying to block Obamacare shouldn't surprise anyone.

That is a whole lot of stupid.

 

[drummer]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

Exactly. I can't believe that most people in this thread can't see this. The republican representatives are doing a great job of representing their base. Have any of you guys looked at facebook? Go to conservative blogs and message boards. There are millions of people that are convinced that Obamacare is the end of the US and that it is being hoisted on the public by a socialist, marxist regime. So the fact that their representatives are trying to block Obamacare shouldn't surprise anyone.

That is a whole lot of stupid.

But the Repubs are doing a great job!

 

[[icon]]

Random question... do proponents of ACA feel that it will be different or similar to the results Massachusetts has had with "RomneyCare"?

If different, how and why?
If same, do you feel Romneycare is a success?

Thanks. Honest question.

 

[Sand]

Democrats have created a massive monetary hole for us to try and cover up here and have absolutely zero interest in curbing that spending. None. They are driving us into the ground. Republicans have given up a tremendous amount of political capital (as can be seen in numerous polls, etc.) over the short term effects of a shutdown. They have created short term pain (furloughs) and given up lots of political currency over the debacle of Obamacare. Why do this? Simply put, because long term this shutdown may bear fruit that allows spending increases to slow to the point that we may be able to climb out of this.

The rest of this is political theater. The name calling, the WWII monument shutdown, Reid putting his foot in his mouth over kids with cancer... Just theater. Long term this fight needed to happen.

There is ZERO evidence that either party is interested in curbing spending. That's part of this problem and the fact that they are just sitting around pointing fingers rather than addressing issues is nauseating. Somehow people think it's a "win" to look at these events in a vacuum even though it does ZERO good from a practical problem solving standpoint. The only "good" here is the ability to point the fingers.

True, neither seem to want to curb spending, though the rhetoric is there. At the very least if Obamacare is blocked a multi-trillion dollar expense goes away, so there is that.

This even remains to be seen.

Given the long history of government programs the chances of this being a huge expenditure over and above what was originally projected is 99+%.

 

[shader]

The House was highly partisan and gerrymandered under Pelosi as well. It's been that way for a long time.

We blame the government for being a polarized cluster####, but they are only that way because we are. The entire country is highly polarized and it's not changing anytime soon.

Exactly. I can't believe that most people in this thread can't see this. The republican representatives are doing a great job of representing their base. Have any of you guys looked at facebook? Go to conservative blogs and message boards. There are millions of people that are convinced that Obamacare is the end of the US and that it is being hoisted on the public by a socialist, marxist regime. So the fact that their representatives are trying to block Obamacare shouldn't surprise anyone.

That is a whole lot of stupid.

Whether it is or is not isn't the point. The point is that it's what many believe. Take a listen to Glenn Beck some morning if you want to know how people think. I got bored of some Sirius NFL radio and channel flipped the other morning. Caught Glenn Beck. I wish I could remember the exact words he used for the democrats, but they weren't pretty. He has millions of listeners, who eat it up.

THAT is why there is a gov't shutdown. Not because of a few rogue representatives in the house.

 

[Sand]

The other issue is the gerrymandering. Ironically both Republicans and Democrats worked together to make this happen. But the reality is that "safe seats" makes compromise unlikely and polarized politics inevitable. It gives far greater power to extremist attitudes than they should have based on the polls.

How can we resolve this? Yankee? Anyone?

I believe that the way Iowa handles redistricting is worth considering.http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Redistricting_in_Iowa

I thought it was Iowa that did this. If we ever had a constitutional convention, IMO, this should be on the top of the list.

 

[Thunderlips]

What they should do is settle this at the voting booth.......oh wait a minute....they already did.

Hopefully, when the Republican Party crumbles over this.....some of the more moderates (I like to think of them as North East Republicans) reach out to more Conservative Democrats (I like to think of them as MidWest Democrats) and they get a party going where normal, middle of the road Americans can feel comfortable (I like to think that they'd call it the Lettuce Party).

Please tell me you don't believe the Democrats are any more sympathetic to the Middle class then the Republicans..

If so.. you might want to check out which states tax the middle class the most..

.

Young Buck, where did I give you that idea?

The Bold part gave me pause...

But in all seriousness..

Until a REAL 3rd party rises up and voters start looking at the policies those holding office stand for and not the party they are affiliated with the country will continue it's slide.. :(

What they should do is settle this at the voting booth.......oh wait a minute....they already did.

Hopefully, when the Republican Party crumbles over this.....some of the more moderates (I like to think of them as North East Republicans) reach out to more Conservative Democrats (I like to think of them as MidWest Democrats) and they get a party going where normal, middle of the road Americans can feel comfortable (I like to think that they'd call it the Lettuce Party).

Please tell me you don't believe the Democrats are any more sympathetic to the Middle class then the Republicans..

If so.. you might want to check out which states tax the middle class the most..

.

Young Buck, where did I give you that idea?

The Bold part gave me pause...

But in all seriousness..

Until a REAL 3rd party rises up and voters start looking at the policies those holding office stand for and not the party they are affiliated with the country will continue it's slide.. :(

I don't get it. The brainwashing from both extremes of the aisle is awesome......because it seems like most Americans would be happy with a middle of the road party.

To that, I think that a new party lies in the Republican Party crumbling (hence the bolded)......because at this point in the game, I don't think the Tea Party is going away and I think the core of the Democratic Party is too tough a nut to crack. Maybe that changes after Obama leaves office and (IMO) the Democrats run someone more palatable to Centrists and Independents.......but as of right now, I think that "Surburban Middle Class" (for lack of better title) needs to find someone to represent them......(of which I think they are more or less slightly Right to the center on fiscal issues, left of center on the philosophies of social issues and right of center on the actual implementation of social issues. )

 

[snogger]

What they should do is settle this at the voting booth.......oh wait a minute....they already did.

Hopefully, when the Republican Party crumbles over this.....some of the more moderates (I like to think of them as North East Republicans) reach out to more Conservative Democrats (I like to think of them as MidWest Democrats) and they get a party going where normal, middle of the road Americans can feel comfortable (I like to think that they'd call it the Lettuce Party).

Please tell me you don't believe the Democrats are any more sympathetic to the Middle class then the Republicans..

If so.. you might want to check out which states tax the middle class the most..

.

Young Buck, where did I give you that idea?

The Bold part gave me pause...

But in all seriousness..

Until a REAL 3rd party rises up and voters start looking at the policies those holding office stand for and not the party they are affiliated with the country will continue it's slide.. :(

I don't get it. The brainwashing from both extremes of the aisle is awesome......because it seems like most Americans would be happy with a middle of the road party.

To that, I think that a new party lies in the Republican Party crumbling (hence the bolded)......because at this point in the game, I don't think the Tea Party is going away and I think the core of the Democratic Party is too tough a nut to crack. Maybe that changes after Obama leaves office and (IMO) the Democrats run someone more palatable to Centrists and Independents.......but as of right now, I think that "Surburban Middle Class" (for lack of better title) needs to find someone to represent them......(of which I think they are more or less slightly Right to the center on fiscal issues, left of center on the philosophies of social issues and right of center on the actual implementation of social issues. )

Some have already split from the hard liners so to speak

Maybe with some luck enough of them will get tired of the fighting, split from their parties, start a legitimate 3rd party, and start fixing.. One can dream

 

[RCon]

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

Lifelong Republican voter here:

There are no reasonable compromises for Democrats to make from their own perspective. Democrats should treat all aspects of Obamacare as inviolable, or else this same shutdown tactic will be used in the future (by either party).

Piggybacking boutique spending bills onto the annual appropriations bill should be forbidden going forward. Probably needs a constitutional amendment to enforce that, but still. What's going on now is dirty pool, and should be considered by all and sundry as out-of-bounds.

this is exactly right. NOBODY should want the dems to cave because if they do this then becomes a viable tool for people in both parties to use on any issue they dont like, even if it is law.abortion? shut govt down.

social security? shut govt down.

medicare? shut govt down.

spotted owl? shut govt down.

this is a very dangerous precedent to set. for the good of the country in the long term the dems have to make a stand that this tactic is completely inappropriate to be used as a negotiating tool just because you have sour grapes of some thing LEGAL that you dont like.

Exactly.

There's also the fact that the Dems already compromised plenty on Obamacare. There's been literally nothing but compromise with the ACA since it was first proposed. There's been compromise after compromise with the Republicans on the budget, entitlements, revenues, everything. Republicans have been playing this zero-sum game for years where they refuse to give an inch. But now that the Democrats are in a position where they can't yield without ruining the democratic process Republicans start crying about how they won't compromise.

The Republican idea of compromise is "you give us what we want, and we'll allow the government to function". It's completely insane

This meme of "Democrats already compromised on Obamacare" is stupid. Democrats didn't compromise one bit with Republicans. Democrats compromised with other Democrats in order to get enough Democrat votes to get over the 50% threshold.

 

[Lutherman2112]

One side shut down the government and the other side said they won't make any compromises to get it back up and running. Both sides are at fault.

Lifelong Republican voter here:

There are no reasonable compromises for Democrats to make from their own perspective. Democrats should treat all aspects of Obamacare as inviolable, or else this same shutdown tactic will be used in the future (by either party).

Piggybacking boutique spending bills onto the annual appropriations bill should be forbidden going forward. Probably needs a constitutional amendment to enforce that, but still. What's going on now is dirty pool, and should be considered by all and sundry as out-of-bounds.

this is exactly right. NOBODY should want the dems to cave because if they do this then becomes a viable tool for people in both parties to use on any issue they dont like, even if it is law.abortion? shut govt down.

social security? shut govt down.

medicare? shut govt down.

spotted owl? shut govt down.

this is a very dangerous precedent to set. for the good of the country in the long term the dems have to make a stand that this tactic is completely inappropriate to be used as a negotiating tool just because you have sour grapes of some thing LEGAL that you dont like.

Great post. The issue with the shutdown is the Continuing Resolution. The Dems and Reps screwed up the budget.

Congress needs to deal with the CR, the debt ceiling, and a budget; in that order, posthaste.

We have to pay the bills now for decisions we made years ago.

We need a budget (strategy). Otherwise we wander around making last minute decisions (tactical).

The US needs vision, and leadership, not partisan blinders.