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

[Fennis]

The turn this thread has taken in the past 5 pages reminds me of..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuMA3ouADzk

I feel like it's been pretty much the same arguing since the first page.

 

[TheIronSheik]

The turn this thread has taken in the past 5 pages reminds me of..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuMA3ouADzk

I feel like it's been pretty much the same arguing since the first page.

Weird thing is, I have the 11th most posts in this thread.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another poll that's brutal to the GOP:

http://gqrr.com/articles/2013/10/11...y-damaging-gop/

A just-completed national survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research confirms that the voting public is fed up with just about everyone in Washington, but Republicans are clearly bearing much more of their anger and it damaging their prospects for 2014.

By a 16-point margin, 43 to 27 percent, voters blame the Republican in Congress, rather than President Obama and the Democrats, for the government shutdown.

The shutdown had left an already damaged GOP brand in tatters and the party’s electoral prospects wounded. The party now has a 2:1 unfavorable to favorable rating, 26 percent favorable vs. 52 percent unfavorable (for a net -26 rating). Among independents their rating is -35. Democrats don’t fare great either, but with a net -5 rating (39 percent favorable vs. 44 percent unfavorable), they do much better. Perhaps most important, on the generic ballot, Democrats now lead by double digits, 46 to 36 percent.

That's the third generic ballot showing the Republicans would lose their majority if the election was today, I think.

you really don't understand "National Polls" vs. how representatives are elected do you??Seriously.. National Congressional Polls show so little approval you'd think there would be major turnover each and every election cycle....

Yet, here we are, year after year with basically the same makeup.. Why??

Because when asked what people think of Congress in general they say "THEY SUCK!!!"

When asked what they think of their representative they say "I them"..

Might want to actually look at the poll. They didn't just ask what people thought of Congress in general. They specifically ask Democrat vs. Republicans and Republicans are getting hammered in the polling. There is correlation between this type of polling and election results.

You might want to re-read his last sentance. Also I decided to take look at that company and holy crap you can't get much more partisan than that, so of course it's going to have skewed results. I was really hoping to find who/where their polling takes place but couldn't find anything.Schlzm

Show us a poll that shows the GOP getting generally favorable outlook as a result of this mess.

We've already had two elections over this thing, 2010 and 2012.

We'll have another. Most moderate Democrats who were strung out by Obama, Pelosi and Reid got their hats handed to them in 2010. Others retired or will retire before 2014. It looks like the R's are pretty confident because they keep pushing it in front of voters and trying to get Demos on record.

Just vote on the House bill and let the voters decide the next round too based on that too.

 

[Schlzm]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

Sorry, I know I'm missing something.

Take the House bill and let it be voted on in the Senate - will it pass or fail?

Which one? Several of the recent drafts would pass, which is why Reid refuses to let it come to that. The Replicans may have kicked this whole thing off, but a few specific Democrats are making sure it keeps going. Either side could end this all if they just accepted the sides demands...Schlzm

 

[Scoresman]

This was just on CNN

http://i39.tinypic.com/2m60u1c.png

 

[Fennis]

The turn this thread has taken in the past 5 pages reminds me of..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuMA3ouADzk

I feel like it's been pretty much the same arguing since the first page.

Weird thing is, I have the 11th most posts in this thread.

feels like you are second?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Why am I not surprised that Carolina Hustler would join the "both sides are to blame" crowd?

Why do you act like your position is the 100% correct one?

As I've pointed out before, if almost all progressives and independents say that conservatives are to blame, but conservatives say both sides are to blame, that should be a good indication that conservatives are to blame.

And your perspective should be considered completely unbiased..

Conservatives blame the "progressives", not both sides.. You living in a hole?

I'm an independent, and I think progressives are more to blame than conservatives.. There goes your theory..

Who did you vote for in House, Senate, and governor in the last times those seats had an election?

I voted for our current governor, but did not cast a vote for house or senate seats this last go..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Another poll that's brutal to the GOP:

http://gqrr.com/articles/2013/10/11...y-damaging-gop/

A just-completed national survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research confirms that the voting public is fed up with just about everyone in Washington, but Republicans are clearly bearing much more of their anger and it damaging their prospects for 2014.

By a 16-point margin, 43 to 27 percent, voters blame the Republican in Congress, rather than President Obama and the Democrats, for the government shutdown.

The shutdown had left an already damaged GOP brand in tatters and the party’s electoral prospects wounded. The party now has a 2:1 unfavorable to favorable rating, 26 percent favorable vs. 52 percent unfavorable (for a net -26 rating). Among independents their rating is -35. Democrats don’t fare great either, but with a net -5 rating (39 percent favorable vs. 44 percent unfavorable), they do much better. Perhaps most important, on the generic ballot, Democrats now lead by double digits, 46 to 36 percent.

That's the third generic ballot showing the Republicans would lose their majority if the election was today, I think.

you really don't understand "National Polls" vs. how representatives are elected do you??Seriously.. National Congressional Polls show so little approval you'd think there would be major turnover each and every election cycle....

Yet, here we are, year after year with basically the same makeup.. Why??

Because when asked what people think of Congress in general they say "THEY SUCK!!!"

When asked what they think of their representative they say "I them"..

Might want to actually look at the poll. They didn't just ask what people thought of Congress in general. They specifically ask Democrat vs. Republicans and Republicans are getting hammered in the polling. There is correlation between this type of polling and election results.

You might want to re-read his last sentance. Also I decided to take look at that company and holy crap you can't get much more partisan than that, so of course it's going to have skewed results. I was really hoping to find who/where their polling takes place but couldn't find anything.Schlzm

Show us a poll that shows the GOP getting generally favorable outlook as a result of this mess.

Show us a poll where either side gets a "favorable" outlook.. The public is unsatisfied with both sides.. Just one side is polling worse than the other..

 

[TheIronSheik]

This was just on CNN

http://i39.tinypic.com/2m60u1c.png

I bet there were no website issues for the Slavery signup at least.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another poll that's brutal to the GOP:

http://gqrr.com/articles/2013/10/11...y-damaging-gop/

A just-completed national survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research confirms that the voting public is fed up with just about everyone in Washington, but Republicans are clearly bearing much more of their anger and it damaging their prospects for 2014.

By a 16-point margin, 43 to 27 percent, voters blame the Republican in Congress, rather than President Obama and the Democrats, for the government shutdown.

The shutdown had left an already damaged GOP brand in tatters and the party’s electoral prospects wounded. The party now has a 2:1 unfavorable to favorable rating, 26 percent favorable vs. 52 percent unfavorable (for a net -26 rating). Among independents their rating is -35. Democrats don’t fare great either, but with a net -5 rating (39 percent favorable vs. 44 percent unfavorable), they do much better. Perhaps most important, on the generic ballot, Democrats now lead by double digits, 46 to 36 percent.

That's the third generic ballot showing the Republicans would lose their majority if the election was today, I think.

you really don't understand "National Polls" vs. how representatives are elected do you??Seriously.. National Congressional Polls show so little approval you'd think there would be major turnover each and every election cycle....

Yet, here we are, year after year with basically the same makeup.. Why??

Because when asked what people think of Congress in general they say "THEY SUCK!!!"

When asked what they think of their representative they say "I them"..

Might want to actually look at the poll. They didn't just ask what people thought of Congress in general. They specifically ask Democrat vs. Republicans and Republicans are getting hammered in the polling. There is correlation between this type of polling and election results.

You might want to re-read his last sentance. Also I decided to take look at that company and holy crap you can't get much more partisan than that, so of course it's going to have skewed results. I was really hoping to find who/where their polling takes place but couldn't find anything.Schlzm

Show us a poll that shows the GOP getting generally favorable outlook as a result of this mess.

The 2014 election?

I'd think if the people were so upset about GOP behavior that Democrats would be aching to vote on this and if it should pass Obama to veto it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

 

[jamny]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

But you're believing that Obama will offer changes to entitlements and Republicans won't agree to closing loopholes to raise revenue. We'll never know which is true until they sit down. A real leader would have had that answered by now. It's been 5 years since he took office.

 

[The Commish]

I really hope it isn't most. The data will tell us what we need to know. I hope folks don't continue to get sucked into the spin zones.

Do you think the majority of voters are objective and keep an open mind about things? I certainly don't.

Hope is a pretty important word here. I'm confident that the politicians don't. That hope is all I have left. Problem is, now we see voters parroting the same things their politicians are and the politicians are saying "see, this is what my base wants". Certainly not looking good.

I suppose I "hope" it happens as well, but I think I have a better chance of hitting the lottery (and I don't play).

It's hard to hold out any hope when you read this board, see the results of polls, etc. The most important factor certainly seems to be the letter next to the name.

If you've read most of this thread and you still hold out any hope, you're a better man than I. What a disaster.

As I was sifting through the garbage, I was thinking of this post....what a bunch of morons.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This was just on CNN

http://i39.tinypic.com/2m60u1c.png

Ah, CNN, always pretending to be the objective news-based network.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

 

[Bogeys]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

But you're believing that Obama will offer changes to entitlements and Republicans won't agree to closing loopholes to raise revenue. We'll never know which is true until they sit down. A real leader would have had that answered by now. It's been 5 years since he took office.

Didn't both sides admit this was true though?

Of course the rub is that all the revenue increases (raising taxes) are always immediate and the spending cuts (cuts in the projected growth, not actual cuts as most people understand them) are always way in the future and never seem to make it through the next budget cycle....

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But you're believing that Obama will offer changes to entitlements and Republicans won't agree to closing loopholes to raise revenue. We'll never know which is true until they sit down. A real leader would have had that answered by now. It's been 5 years since he took office.

Obama actually made those offers during the last round of budget negotiations. Using chained CPI for Social Security is one specific I recall.

And Republicans have actually said they wouldn't even entertain the closing of loopholes, let alone new taxes. So I'm not dealing with hypotheticals here.

I do agree with you that the ultimate deal here is going to include entitlement reform and additional revenues (closed loopholes at the very least), but when one side refuses to concede any ground and decides to shut down government and/or breach the debt limit instead of looking for ways to meet in the middle there's really not much you can do.

Obama won the 2012 election -- which was in part about this very issue. Dems also held onto the Senate agains the odds and won more votes in House despite their failure to take the chamber. To expect them to surrender and adopt the Repubican position (cuts to entitlements and no new revenues) is irrational. No one would agree to do that from a position of relative strength.

 

[Scoresman]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

Incorrect. There is a shutdown because a minority, psychopathic splinter of the Republican party are circumventing established legislative processes and Obama is correctly not wavering. Any wavering on Obama's part would basically justify the suicide caucus as a valid tactic, which would be horrible in the long term.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

Incorrect. There is a shutdown because a minority, psychopathic splinter of the Republican party are circumventing established legislative processes and Obama is correctly not wavering. Any wavering on Obama's part would basically justify the suicide caucus as a valid tactic, which would be horrible in the long term.

I am so perplexed by this, the House has power over all spending and revenue provisions. This is clear. It's in the Constitution, which is over 200 years old. This has been true since Day 1 of the country, that's as established as it gets.

How did we end up with a law that passed one Congress but can't get funded in the next?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

Incorrect. There is a shutdown because a minority, psychopathic splinter of the Republican party are circumventing established legislative processes and Obama is correctly not wavering. Any wavering on Obama's part would basically justify the suicide caucus as a valid tactic, which would be horrible in the long term.

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

Incorrect. There is a shutdown because a minority, psychopathic splinter of the Republican party are circumventing established legislative processes and Obama is correctly not wavering. Any wavering on Obama's part would basically justify the suicide caucus as a valid tactic, which would be horrible in the long term.

Nonsense.. The majority in the house wants a budget that represents what the majority of americans want.

And as many have pointed out to you, Congress defunding previously passed legislation is nothing new, this has happened before but the opposition hasn't previously decided to shutdown government rather than accept a budget that doesn't fund their pet legislation..

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why am I not surprised that Carolina Hustler would join the "both sides are to blame" crowd?

Why do you act like your position is the 100% correct one?

As I've pointed out before, if almost all progressives and independents say that conservatives are to blame, but conservatives say both sides are to blame, that should be a good indication that conservatives are to blame.

I'm an independent

I welcome and embrace you, my fellow lifelong registered independent and librarian.....

wait a second....abort! ABORT! KooK Alert!

I now reject you for your KooKiness.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

Incorrect. There is a shutdown because a minority, psychopathic splinter of the Republican party are circumventing established legislative processes and Obama is correctly not wavering. Any wavering on Obama's part would basically justify the suicide caucus as a valid tactic, which would be horrible in the long term.

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

You keep making valid points and they will keep ignoring them..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Why am I not surprised that Carolina Hustler would join the "both sides are to blame" crowd?

Why do you act like your position is the 100% correct one?

As I've pointed out before, if almost all progressives and independents say that conservatives are to blame, but conservatives say both sides are to blame, that should be a good indication that conservatives are to blame.

I'm an independent

I welcome and embrace you, my fellow lifelong registered independent and librarian.....

wait a second....abort! ABORT! KooK Alert!

I now reject you for your KooKiness.

I expected to see you in here..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But you're believing that Obama will offer changes to entitlements and Republicans won't agree to closing loopholes to raise revenue. We'll never know which is true until they sit down. A real leader would have had that answered by now. It's been 5 years since he took office.

Obama actually made those offers during the last round of budget negotiations. Using chained CPI for Social Security is one specific I recall.

And Republicans have actually said they wouldn't even entertain the closing of loopholes, let alone new taxes. So I'm not dealing with hypotheticals here.

I do agree with you that the ultimate deal here is going to include entitlement reform and additional revenues (closed loopholes at the very least), but when one side refuses to concede any ground and decides to shut down government and/or breach the debt limit instead of looking for ways to meet in the middle there's really not much you can do.

Obama won the 2012 election -- which was in part about this very issue. Dems also held onto the Senate agains the odds and won more votes in House despite their failure to take the chamber. To expect them to surrender and adopt the Repubican position (cuts to entitlements and no new revenues) is irrational. No one would agree to do that from a position of relative strength.

Social security isn't an entitlment.. We pay in for that...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

 

[jamny]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

Put funding ACA up to a vote by voters?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why am I not surprised that Carolina Hustler would join the "both sides are to blame" crowd?

Why do you act like your position is the 100% correct one?

As I've pointed out before, if almost all progressives and independents say that conservatives are to blame, but conservatives say both sides are to blame, that should be a good indication that conservatives are to blame.

I'm an independent

I welcome and embrace you, my fellow lifelong registered independent and librarian.....

wait a second....abort! ABORT! KooK Alert!

I now reject you for your KooKiness.

I expected to see you in here..

Be wary, brothers, the KooK Power is strong in this one.

 

[msommer]

But you're believing that Obama will offer changes to entitlements and Republicans won't agree to closing loopholes to raise revenue. We'll never know which is true until they sit down. A real leader would have had that answered by now. It's been 5 years since he took office.

Obama actually made those offers during the last round of budget negotiations. Using chained CPI for Social Security is one specific I recall.

And Republicans have actually said they wouldn't even entertain the closing of loopholes, let alone new taxes. So I'm not dealing with hypotheticals here.

I do agree with you that the ultimate deal here is going to include entitlement reform and additional revenues (closed loopholes at the very least), but when one side refuses to concede any ground and decides to shut down government and/or breach the debt limit instead of looking for ways to meet in the middle there's really not much you can do.

Obama won the 2012 election -- which was in part about this very issue. Dems also held onto the Senate agains the odds and won more votes in House despite their failure to take the chamber. To expect them to surrender and adopt the Repubican position (cuts to entitlements and no new revenues) is irrational. No one would agree to do that from a position of relative strength.

Social security isn't an entitlment.. We pay in for that...

Is it fully funded by the payments? Or are there additional funds from e.g. income taxes?

 

[Scoresman]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

Again, if Dems budge it sets a precedent that the suicide caucus is a valid tactic the next time one party doesn't get their way. Clean DL, clean CR, and then we'll talk.

The main arguments I'm hearing from the R side RE: the shutdown is that the Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse, so they're completely within their rights to do this - framing it as Executive versus Legislative power. In one sense they're right, but they're not getting that it's a horrific procedure that should be reserved only for absolute emergencies and is not an acceptable mode of routine governance. That seems to be the disconnect.

 

[badmojo1006]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

Incorrect. There is a shutdown because a minority, psychopathic splinter of the Republican party are circumventing established legislative processes and Obama is correctly not wavering. Any wavering on Obama's part would basically justify the suicide caucus as a valid tactic, which would be horrible in the long term.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

Again, if Dems budge it sets a precedent that the suicide caucus is a valid tactic the next time one party doesn't get their way. Clean DL, clean CR, and then we'll talk.

The main arguments I'm hearing from the R side RE: the shutdown is that the Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse, so they're completely within their rights to do this - framing it as Executive versus Legislative power. In one sense they're right, but they're not getting that it's a horrific procedure that should be reserved only for absolute emergencies and is not an acceptable mode of routine governance. That seems to be the disconnect.

Rational talk, but we need to find a way out of this.

 

[Thunderlips]

The Democratic controlled Senate should just "nuclear option" this ####.

 

[Schlzm]

Another poll that's brutal to the GOP:

http://gqrr.com/articles/2013/10/11...y-damaging-gop/

A just-completed national survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research confirms that the voting public is fed up with just about everyone in Washington, but Republicans are clearly bearing much more of their anger and it damaging their prospects for 2014.

By a 16-point margin, 43 to 27 percent, voters blame the Republican in Congress, rather than President Obama and the Democrats, for the government shutdown.

The shutdown had left an already damaged GOP brand in tatters and the party’s electoral prospects wounded. The party now has a 2:1 unfavorable to favorable rating, 26 percent favorable vs. 52 percent unfavorable (for a net -26 rating). Among independents their rating is -35. Democrats don’t fare great either, but with a net -5 rating (39 percent favorable vs. 44 percent unfavorable), they do much better. Perhaps most important, on the generic ballot, Democrats now lead by double digits, 46 to 36 percent.

That's the third generic ballot showing the Republicans would lose their majority if the election was today, I think.

you really don't understand "National Polls" vs. how representatives are elected do you??Seriously.. National Congressional Polls show so little approval you'd think there would be major turnover each and every election cycle....

Yet, here we are, year after year with basically the same makeup.. Why??

Because when asked what people think of Congress in general they say "THEY SUCK!!!"

When asked what they think of their representative they say "I them"..

Might want to actually look at the poll. They didn't just ask what people thought of Congress in general. They specifically ask Democrat vs. Republicans and Republicans are getting hammered in the polling. There is correlation between this type of polling and election results.

You might want to re-read his last sentance. Also I decided to take look at that company and holy crap you can't get much more partisan than that, so of course it's going to have skewed results. I was really hoping to find who/where their polling takes place but couldn't find anything.Schlzm

Show us a poll that shows the GOP getting generally favorable outlook as a result of this mess.

Pretty much no one is getting a favourable outlook from any of this so you know that's an empty pursuit. Also none of the polling I have been able to find targets individual candidates since this isn't an election year outside of local races. Schlzm

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But you're believing that Obama will offer changes to entitlements and Republicans won't agree to closing loopholes to raise revenue. We'll never know which is true until they sit down. A real leader would have had that answered by now. It's been 5 years since he took office.

Obama actually made those offers during the last round of budget negotiations. Using chained CPI for Social Security is one specific I recall.

And Republicans have actually said they wouldn't even entertain the closing of loopholes, let alone new taxes. So I'm not dealing with hypotheticals here.

I do agree with you that the ultimate deal here is going to include entitlement reform and additional revenues (closed loopholes at the very least), but when one side refuses to concede any ground and decides to shut down government and/or breach the debt limit instead of looking for ways to meet in the middle there's really not much you can do.

Obama won the 2012 election -- which was in part about this very issue. Dems also held onto the Senate agains the odds and won more votes in House despite their failure to take the chamber. To expect them to surrender and adopt the Repubican position (cuts to entitlements and no new revenues) is irrational. No one would agree to do that from a position of relative strength.

Social security isn't an entitlment.. We pay in for that...

Is it fully funded by the payments? Or are there additional funds from e.g. income taxes?

Currently in surplus...

 

[Scoresman]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

Again, if Dems budge it sets a precedent that the suicide caucus is a valid tactic the next time one party doesn't get their way. Clean DL, clean CR, and then we'll talk.

The main arguments I'm hearing from the R side RE: the shutdown is that the Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse, so they're completely within their rights to do this - framing it as Executive versus Legislative power. In one sense they're right, but they're not getting that it's a horrific procedure that should be reserved only for absolute emergencies and is not an acceptable mode of routine governance. That seems to be the disconnect.

Rational talk, but we need to find a way out of this.

Could always move to Canada. Vancouver is a beautiful city.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

Again, if Dems budge it sets a precedent that the suicide caucus is a valid tactic the next time one party doesn't get their way. Clean DL, clean CR, and then we'll talk.

The main arguments I'm hearing from the R side RE: the shutdown is that the Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse, so they're completely within their rights to do this - framing it as Executive versus Legislative power. In one sense they're right, but they're not getting that it's a horrific procedure that should be reserved only for absolute emergencies and is not an acceptable mode of routine governance. That seems to be the disconnect.

Again, the majority in congress controls the ever changing government spending budget.. This is not the first time Congress has defunded previous legislation and it won't be the last..

 

[apalmer]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

While we're at it, let's also strip out all funding used to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the borders and vote on that later. Think the Republicans would go for that?

 

[The Commish]

Is this thread setting a record for aliases ?? I think it is.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

While we're at it, let's also strip out all funding used to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the borders and vote on that later. Think the Republicans would go for that?

Let the votes represent the wants and needs of americans.. I don't believe most americans want an unprotected border, though I'm sure they are likely not interested in being pulled over and harassed for no reason at all 50 miles from the border either..

 

[apalmer]

...

The Senate already voted to fund ACA for 2014. It's in the budget the Senate passed.

Wait, we already have a 2014 budget?

What is everyone fighting about then?

They passed a budget that barely passed the Senate (by 1 vote) just so they didn't have to hear about not passing a budget for 4 years. House Repubs ignored it just like the Senate ignored the ones from the House. And people wonder why others blame both sides.

That's what happens when Congress is divided. Both sides pass a budget and neither side gets everything it wants. The differences get hammered out by negotiators.

Neither side is even allowing it to get there. That's the point. Yes the Republicans, and specifically the Tea Party, are responsible for this actual shutdown, but they both contributed to getting us to that point. Had there been a budget, there wouldn't be a CR and there wouldn't be a shutdown at this very moment.

This is somewhat true. The two sides are far far apart on what the post-financial crisis budget world is going to look like and that's driving most of this mess.

At the same time Democrats have said that they're willing to see further spending cuts, and Obama has offered changes to the entitlement programs (though it's not clear if Dems in Congress will support that) as long as those cuts are offset by increase revenues. They're willing to give something to get something.

So far Republicans have said they will not support any new revenues (not just additional taxes, but closing of loopholes either -- anything that would increase revenue to government). And having been unable to force that view through any other way have elected to shut down government and threaten to default on the debt ceiling.

So the underlying disagreement is absolutely bipartisan, and very thorny since the electorate has sent mixed messages about which vision is the long-term winner.

But the specific 'crisis' we have now is almost entirely caused by Republicans seeking to get via crisis what they know they won't be able to get via negotiations (which is why they refuse to empower neogotiators to conference with the Senate) -- namely cuts with no additional revenues.

For goodness sake if the ACA is the lone sticking point there is no earthly excuse for not passing the budget sans ACA and then just voting on that. Then let the people decide in 2014. We as 5 or so people in a room could all agree on that couldn't we?

The Dems will not relent on the ACA which is why there is a shutdown.. You are right, this could be easily solved later but the dems barely won that mark in their scorecard as it is, and the majority of Americans disapprove, so they aren't about to let it go, for fear that they will never have a shot at it again..

If they are/were so confident that Americans want/need ACA, they should be fine doing as you propose, but they aren't..

Incorrect. There is a shutdown because a minority, psychopathic splinter of the Republican party are circumventing established legislative processes and Obama is correctly not wavering. Any wavering on Obama's part would basically justify the suicide caucus as a valid tactic, which would be horrible in the long term.

I am so perplexed by this, the House has power over all spending and revenue provisions. This is clear. It's in the Constitution, which is over 200 years old. This has been true since Day 1 of the country, that's as established as it gets.

"power to originate" does not equal "power over all spending and revenue provisions". The Senate's agreement has been necessary since Day 1, as has it's power to suggest amendments.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's starting to sound like the Republicans in the Senate may partner with Senate Dems and pass a bill that opens government, raises the debt limit and maybe does a few other things that might represent comprmises by both groups at the same time.

Basically that Senate Republicans might throw the House Republicans under the bus and dare them not to vote on something that had bi-partisan support in the Senate as well as an OK from Obama.

I'm reading between the lines a little there so could be wildly wrong. But it makes sense. Senators only face elections every six years and tend to be more moderate in general.

 

[apalmer]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

I'm presuming that if they stripped ACA out for a stand alone vote, then the rest of the budget could be agreed upon. No?

Surrender? Has it come to the point in our country that losing a vote or requiring our president to stand on principle (by vetoing) is surrendering? They should vote on it and then the people should vote on that.

I am not talking about the rightness or the wrongness of the ACA, I'm honestly ready to move on (4 freakin' years of this), but this is the problem with the country right here.

While we're at it, let's also strip out all funding used to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the borders and vote on that later. Think the Republicans would go for that?

Let the votes represent the wants and needs of americans.. I don't believe most americans want an unprotected border, though I'm sure they are likely not interested in being pulled over and harassed for no reason at all 50 miles from the border either..

You missed (or ignored) the point: immigration control isn't the issue. The idea I was trying (apparently too subtly) to suggest is that you can't resolve a disagreement on one item in the budget by passing what one side wants and voting on the other issue later. It's clear that the House would never vote to fund the ACA if that course was followed. That's why the budget is done in one bill--if you want to include things you want funded, you have to include things the other side wants funded or nobody gets what they want.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

“Senate Democrats and Republicans are quietly talking about potential agreements,” a senior Democratic aide told The Huffington Post. “The only thing that’s clear right now is that there is little appetite for a deal on the debt limit that leaves the government shuttered.”

One top Republican Senate aide, meanwhile, said members in that chamber were increasingly ready to end the standoff. "Obviously, there is a strong desire here to resolve this thing," the aide said.

The extent to which party leaders are involved in these conversations wasn't clear. A Senate aide said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told frustrated members on Wednesday that he understood their concerns about damage to the GOP brand. The aide said McConnell gave his blessing to them exploring a deal, though Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, declined to confirm or deny that account.

So the idea could be that the Senate passes a bi-partisan bill where...

• a) government is reopened
• b) the debt limit is raised
• c) Dems give up something so that Republicans can say they "got something"
• d) Republicans give up something so that Obama can say "I didn't give anything away to get a) and b) -- I gave up c) in order to get d)"

So the Senate passes it with votes from both parties and piles incredible pressure on Boehner to allow a vote, where Dems plus exactly enough Republicans needed to pass it join together (giving political cover to 200 Republican House members who are allowed to vote against it since their votes are not needed to pass it)

 

[dozer]

The Truckers Ride for the Constitution is causing freakishly normal traffic patterns.

10-4 Good Buddys

 

[Lutherman2112]

Wait a second, couldn't Harry Reid just put this up for a vote in the Senate now? And wouldn't all Democrats vote against it, or would it pass?

There are 100 people in the Senate and Reid is a Democrat.

Yes, Harry Reid could surrender to the Republicans, pass their budget, give them 100% of their wish list and the government would reopen. But expecting that is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Republican House could do the same thing with the Senate budget, btw. Which would be an equally ridiculous thing to expect.

House GOP leaders did not nominate budget resolution conferees after the Senate passed their budge bill. Senate GOP had theirs, Senate Dems had theirs, House Dems had theirs...no House Republican conferees.

According to Congressional Budget Act of 1974, April 15 is the statuary deadline for Congress to complete action on adopting a conference agreement on the budget resolution. House Republicans refused to go to conference.

 

[Schlzm]

“Senate Democrats and Republicans are quietly talking about potential agreements,” a senior Democratic aide told The Huffington Post. “The only thing that’s clear right now is that there is little appetite for a deal on the debt limit that leaves the government shuttered.”

One top Republican Senate aide, meanwhile, said members in that chamber were increasingly ready to end the standoff. "Obviously, there is a strong desire here to resolve this thing," the aide said.

The extent to which party leaders are involved in these conversations wasn't clear. A Senate aide said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told frustrated members on Wednesday that he understood their concerns about damage to the GOP brand. The aide said McConnell gave his blessing to them exploring a deal, though Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, declined to confirm or deny that account.

So the idea could be that the Senate passes a bi-partisan bill where...

• a) government is reopened
• b) the debt limit is raised
• c) Dems give up something so that Republicans can say they "got something"
• d) Republicans give up something so that Obama can say "I didn't give anything away to get a) and b) -- I gave up c) in order to get d)"

So the Senate passes it with votes from both parties and piles incredible pressure on Boehner to allow a vote, where Dems plus exactly enough Republicans needed to pass it join together (giving political cover to 200 Republican House members who are allowed to vote against it since their votes are not needed to pass it)

That's roughly how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately there are extremists on both sides screaming all or nothing so we get tardation and chaos instead.Schlzm

 

[The Commish]

Apparently the truckers are as well organized as the people they voted for, so there's that