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

[kwille]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I don't think there are any winners but I will say that [/SIZE]Senetor Cruz [SIZE=10.5pt]has a nose that looks like frank n beans. Just now noticed that.[/SIZE]

 

[msommer]

So what happens in an hours time?

 

[timschochet]

My other point is, at this time, do we really need to have some kind of grand bargain on spending? The deficit is falling, thanks to the tax hikes from January, and perhaps also thanks to the sequester (though I doubt it.) So we tinker with the sequester and make it more targeted than across the board. Other than that, why is it necessary to make major changes? For the moment, status quo is working.

I would concentrate more on the two issues that really should be our primary concerns: how to increase productivity, jobs, and trade, and getting off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

 

[Redwes25]

Total win for Democrats -- especially Obama.

Maybe from a Democrats view. As an Independent I don't think the Democrats come off looking any better than the Republicans. And anyone who celebrates this as a win is an idiot.

I don't think you're as independent as you claim to be.

Why? Because I don't agree with your views? I've stated in the past every single person I've voted for for POTUS. Obama is on the list of people I've voted for. Curious at why you think I'm not Independent?

Yeah, I shouldn't have been so snarky. I just don't see how anyone can try to apportion the blame on this very particular mess equally between the parties. When I see some rather right-leaning folks in here pointing the blame at the Repubs, I start to think that you must be pretty hard right leaning to think the Dems drove this bus at all.

Perhaps it isn't fair, and I certainly don't think you have to agree with me or be on the far-right.

Because the dems and Obama were willing to negotiate with Big Business and political cronies about Obamacare, but when the GOP rallied for the rest of the American people then suddenly there was no room to compromise or negotiate. THAT'S why there is blame to go around.

Anyone thinking that the Dems bear no responsibility here is nothing more than a pure partisan hack. On the partisan hack level of BST, Todd Andrews and wdcrob.

This line of thinking doesn't make much sense to me. Pretty sure Romney ran on a plan to repeal Obamacare and lost. Seems like the American people don't care.

Oh, believe me, they're starting to care now that they're seeing the actual rates.

The point is that the Dems were willing to negotiate with ANYONE besides the GOP. They're just as responsible for the shutdown.

Maybe if a segment of Republicans hadn't pulled this stunt the complet cluster#### that the roll-up of Obamacare would be front in center of everyone's mind. Instead it is getting ignored to deal with a pointless #### storm that kicked the can for 3 months.

As a republican, I hope these ####### cry babies can go shut up and let the big boys run the country again. In my mind, this entire mess hurt the chances of fixing/removing Obamacare.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Total win for Democrats -- especially Obama.

Maybe from a Democrats view. As an Independent I don't think the Democrats come off looking any better than the Republicans. And anyone who celebrates this as a win is an idiot.

I don't think you're as independent as you claim to be.

Why? Because I don't agree with your views? I've stated in the past every single person I've voted for for POTUS. Obama is on the list of people I've voted for. Curious at why you think I'm not Independent?

Yeah, I shouldn't have been so snarky. I just don't see how anyone can try to apportion the blame on this very particular mess equally between the parties. When I see some rather right-leaning folks in here pointing the blame at the Repubs, I start to think that you must be pretty hard right leaning to think the Dems drove this bus at all.

Perhaps it isn't fair, and I certainly don't think you have to agree with me or be on the far-right.

Because the dems and Obama were willing to negotiate with Big Business and political cronies about Obamacare, but when the GOP rallied for the rest of the American people then suddenly there was no room to compromise or negotiate. THAT'S why there is blame to go around.

Anyone thinking that the Dems bear no responsibility here is nothing more than a pure partisan hack. On the partisan hack level of BST, Todd Andrews and wdcrob.

This line of thinking doesn't make much sense to me. Pretty sure Romney ran on a plan to repeal Obamacare and lost. Seems like the American people don't care.

Oh, believe me, they're starting to care now that they're seeing the actual rates.

The point is that the Dems were willing to negotiate with ANYONE besides the GOP. They're just as responsible for the shutdown.

Sounds like a sore loser to me

Which is the type of response I would expect someone to say when they don't want to face reality.

 

[badmojo1006]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I don't think there are any winners but I will say that [/SIZE]Senetor Cruz [SIZE=10.5pt]has a nose that looks like frank n beans. Just now noticed that.[/SIZE]

I really hope that with the drubbing he took, that that stupid smirk is wiped off his face

 

[timschochet]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I don't think there are any winners but I will say that [/SIZE]Senetor Cruz [SIZE=10.5pt]has a nose that looks like frank n beans. Just now noticed that.[/SIZE]

He looks like a fatter, bigger, Pee Wee Herman.

 

[TheIronSheik]

My other point is, at this time, do we really need to have some kind of grand bargain on spending? The deficit is falling, thanks to the tax hikes from January, and perhaps also thanks to the sequester (though I doubt it.) So we tinker with the sequester and make it more targeted than across the board. Other than that, why is it necessary to make major changes? For the moment, status quo is working.

I would concentrate more on the two issues that really should be our primary concerns: how to increase productivity, jobs, and trade, and getting off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

Still not sure why this was number two on this list behind Obamacare.

 

[Soonerman]

We won't know the ultimate political winners and losers until we see the results of the 2014 elections. However, I believe a few assumptions can be made:

1. I think the Tea Party lost. One of the most striking aspects of this story was the number of Republican "establishment" types who spoke out, for the first time, against what Cruz and the Tea Party was doing. The Chamber of Commerce is going to "primary" some Tea Party members in the next election, starting with Amash in Michigan. We'll see how that goes.

2. Obamacare is here to stay, until it's finally replaced with single payer.

3. Call me an optimist, but I don't think it matters how short a time the debt ceiling was raised this time around. I don't believe the Republicans will allow this threat to occur again.

Hopefully the Republicans get wiped out in 2014. They are completely irrelevant as an opposition party.

 

[Slapdash]

My other point is, at this time, do we really need to have some kind of grand bargain on spending? The deficit is falling, thanks to the tax hikes from January, and perhaps also thanks to the sequester (though I doubt it.) So we tinker with the sequester and make it more targeted than across the board. Other than that, why is it necessary to make major changes? For the moment, status quo is working.

I would concentrate more on the two issues that really should be our primary concerns: how to increase productivity, jobs, and trade, and getting off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

I agree. The long term issue is with health care, so we need to be focused on how to modify Obamacare to get greater cost reductions across the system IMO.

We can do those things on your list in a way that helps the debt though.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Total win for Democrats -- especially Obama.

Maybe from a Democrats view. As an Independent I don't think the Democrats come off looking any better than the Republicans. And anyone who celebrates this as a win is an idiot.

I don't think you're as independent as you claim to be.

Why? Because I don't agree with your views? I've stated in the past every single person I've voted for for POTUS. Obama is on the list of people I've voted for. Curious at why you think I'm not Independent?

Yeah, I shouldn't have been so snarky. I just don't see how anyone can try to apportion the blame on this very particular mess equally between the parties. When I see some rather right-leaning folks in here pointing the blame at the Repubs, I start to think that you must be pretty hard right leaning to think the Dems drove this bus at all.

Perhaps it isn't fair, and I certainly don't think you have to agree with me or be on the far-right.

Because the dems and Obama were willing to negotiate with Big Business and political cronies about Obamacare, but when the GOP rallied for the rest of the American people then suddenly there was no room to compromise or negotiate. THAT'S why there is blame to go around.

Anyone thinking that the Dems bear no responsibility here is nothing more than a pure partisan hack. On the partisan hack level of BST, Todd Andrews and wdcrob.

MaxKooK says what?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Oh, believe me, they're starting to care now that they're seeing the actual rates.The point is that the Dems were willing to negotiate with ANYONE besides the GOP. They're just as responsible for the shutdown.

Like most other subjects, your grasp of how negotiations work is poor.

Dems understood that Republicans weren't actually offering them anything.

They knew that Republicans would open government and raise the debt limit without any concessions at all. Which is exactly what happened.

There was nothing to negotiate about.

 

[igbomb]

My other point is, at this time, do we really need to have some kind of grand bargain on spending? The deficit is falling, thanks to the tax hikes from January, and perhaps also thanks to the sequester (though I doubt it.) So we tinker with the sequester and make it more targeted than across the board. Other than that, why is it necessary to make major changes? For the moment, status quo is working.

I would concentrate more on the two issues that really should be our primary concerns: how to increase productivity, jobs, and trade, and getting off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

While I don't think that the deficit issue is nearly as much of a looming catastrophe as the Tea Party would have us think, I don't agree that the status quo is working.

Yes, the deficit is falling, but our overall debt growth is still outpacing GDP. Plus, a lot of our entitlement spending is still going in the wrong direction due to demographics (SS) and poor system design (Medicaid/Medicare). The sooner you can get a plan in place on these big spending issues, the more time it gives you to phase change in. A shock to the SS system would cause some turmoil, but if you phase-in changes to the payroll tax cap or slowly defer the qualifying age by a year or two (etc.), it becomes more palatable than a one-time adjustment.

Every time a committee meets and agrees on a plan, the damn things gets shelved. And often, an awful lot of people think the new plan is an improvement over the old. Maybe this time (yeah, right) we can actually use the momentum this mess has caused to institute some change.

 

[Sammy3469]

Oh, believe me, they're starting to care now that they're seeing the actual rates.The point is that the Dems were willing to negotiate with ANYONE besides the GOP. They're just as responsible for the shutdown.

Like most other subjects, your grasp of how negotiations work is poor.

Dems understood that Republicans weren't actually offering them anything.

They knew that Republicans would open government and raise the debt limit without any concessions at all. Which is exactly what happened.

There was nothing to negotiate about.

The only concessions came from Republicans which is truly astounding. Cruz et al overplayed their hand starting Sept 30. Heck, Reid was able to walk away from the Collins deal earlier in the week which was a better deal for Republicans and get a total Republican rollover today. Well played Obama/Reid/Pelosi.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "marshall law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

Spelled like that?

It's not what you think. There's a guy named Marshall who's going to be in charge for awhile. We'll see how it goes.

Marshall Mathers? Or Maybe Marshall from "How I met your Mother"? He is tall

No, they will get Martial Dillon to uphold Marshall Law

 

[TheIronSheik]

I just picture a cartoon out there somewhere with the skyline of Washington burning and nothing but rubble while two Democrats high five each other and say, "Yay! We won!"

Someone who can draw, get on it!

 

[[icon]]

I think its nice that Mr Obama is going to let all us Americans play with his toys again, now that this is settled.

Open up the parks and monuments!

 

[RCon]

My other point is, at this time, do we really need to have some kind of grand bargain on spending? The deficit is falling, thanks to the tax hikes from January, and perhaps also thanks to the sequester (though I doubt it.) So we tinker with the sequester and make it more targeted than across the board. Other than that, why is it necessary to make major changes? For the moment, status quo is working.

I would concentrate more on the two issues that really should be our primary concerns: how to increase productivity, jobs, and trade, and getting off of our reliance on fossil fuels.

When you ("you" being government in general) crank the deficit up to "bat#### insane" levels, you shouldn't get kudos for reducing it back to regular insane levels. The deficit is still way out of whack and needs fixing.

As far as targeted cuts go, it's not going to happen because everyone wants to protect their own special interests. Across the board is the only way to get any sort of agreement, even if no one is happy about it.

 

[timschochet]

Quote from John Boehner just now: "We fought the good fight; we just didn't win."

Estimated cost of the shutdown thus far per ABC news: 20 billion.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Quote from John Boehner just now: "We fought the good fight; we just didn't win."

Estimated cost of the shutdown thus far per ABC news: 20 billion.

We should add an extra tax on all republican districts to make up the deficit

 

[Boston]

Total win for Democrats -- especially Obama.

Maybe from a Democrats view. As an Independent I don't think the Democrats come off looking any better than the Republicans. And anyone who celebrates this as a win is an idiot.

I don't think you're as independent as you claim to be.

Why? Because I don't agree with your views? I've stated in the past every single person I've voted for for POTUS. Obama is on the list of people I've voted for. Curious at why you think I'm not Independent?

Yeah, I shouldn't have been so snarky. I just don't see how anyone can try to apportion the blame on this very particular mess equally between the parties. When I see some rather right-leaning folks in here pointing the blame at the Repubs, I start to think that you must be pretty hard right leaning to think the Dems drove this bus at all.

Perhaps it isn't fair, and I certainly don't think you have to agree with me or be on the far-right.

Because the dems and Obama were willing to negotiate with Big Business and political cronies about Obamacare, but when the GOP rallied for the rest of the American people then suddenly there was no room to compromise or negotiate. THAT'S why there is blame to go around.

Anyone thinking that the Dems bear no responsibility here is nothing more than a pure partisan hack. On the partisan hack level of BST, Todd Andrews and wdcrob.

This line of thinking doesn't make much sense to me. Pretty sure Romney ran on a plan to repeal Obamacare and lost. Seems like the American people don't care.

Oh, believe me, they're starting to care now that they're seeing the actual rates.

The point is that the Dems were willing to negotiate with ANYONE besides the GOP. They're just as responsible for the shutdown.

Maybe if a segment of Republicans hadn't pulled this stunt the complet cluster#### that the roll-up of Obamacare would be front in center of everyone's mind. Instead it is getting ignored to deal with a pointless #### storm that kicked the can for 3 months.

As a republican, I hope these ####### cry babies can go shut up and let the big boys run the country again. In my mind, this entire mess hurt the chances of fixing/removing Obamacare.

Think about the opportunity lost here...this roll out is an absolute disaster and has cost far more than projected with a ton of stuff that was promised that will not be delivered (and was never going to be delivered)...this is exactly what so many on the right feel is what is inherently wrong with our current Government...they should simply be sitting back letting this debacle play out and saying I told you so while warning people that the left's answer to this will be to give the people causing these problems more power to solve them...

 

[Plorfu]

Quote from John Boehner just now: "We fought the good fight; we just didn't win."

THIS ISN'T A DAMN GAME!

 

[VA703]

So who won?

**********************

Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needsSometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.

Gloria Clemente, White Men Can't RunuptheNationalDebt

no winners

just 350 million losers

 

[[icon]]

That didn't take long

 

[KCitons]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

 

[snogger]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

nolabels.org

 

[dgreen]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

How would you remove the affiliations? They'd still align themselves with people who think similarly and negotiate with each other to vote for certain things.

 

[Fennis]

Grover Norquist on Ted Cruz:

"He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away."

and if anyone knows what it is like to push republicans into traffic it is Grover Norquist.

the entire quote is pretty good:

The Republicans have a strategy which was to move the continuing resolution until after the debt ceiling. So just put a clear CR out for a couple of months and then you negotiate on debt ceiling, you wrap it into the next CR, and it'll all be dealt with together.

Ted Cruz came in and said, no, no, no, no, no, if you're not for defunding Obamacare on the CR, you're an appeaser of Hitler, you're a coward — ugly name-calling. A lot of Republicans are very unhappy that this was going on. Cruz's strategy didn't go anywhere. Cruz pushed all the Republicans out into traffic and then he wandered off. He told them it'd be safe — it wasn't. He told them it would work — it didn't. He needs to apologize to all the Republicans who were misled about this strategy that he didn't implement.

Norquist was dead on, got to give him that

 

[KCitons]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

How would you remove the affiliations? They'd still align themselves with people who think similarly and negotiate with each other to vote for certain things.

could it work the opposite as well. Where people would be more willing to vote based on merit, instead of party line. Not that it would happen right away, but over time it would morph into something beneficial.

 

[snogger]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

How would you remove the affiliations? They'd still align themselves with people who think similarly and negotiate with each other to vote for certain things.

In a "Dream World"...

Take what they are talking about doing for NFL Coach's /GM's and implement it for Politicians..

In case you missed it.. They are talking about resumes for potential coaches/GM's only having what they have accomplished on it..

So, in the case of politicians, no Label's.. Just their past record on votes/accomplishments.

Would love to see the make up our representatives if people voted on a persons record/accomplishments rather then the party they align themselves with.

I now return you back to reality

 

[TheIronSheik]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

Old people would just hate minorities. It would still be pretty much the same thing, give or take a few people.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

How would you remove the affiliations? They'd still align themselves with people who think similarly and negotiate with each other to vote for certain things.

You could get one of those machines that the Star Belly Sneetches had.

 

[KCitons]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

nolabels.org

Every one of those bios includes the party affiliation in the first sentence. Some people in this country still vote based on party.

 

[timschochet]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

How would you remove the affiliations? They'd still align themselves with people who think similarly and negotiate with each other to vote for certain things.

You could get one of those machines that the Star Belly Sneetches had.

 

[snogger]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

nolabels.org

Every one of those bios includes the party affiliation in the first sentence. Some people in this country still vote based on party.

Yes I know.. unfortunately Right now the way it is setup they have no choice.. If you want the you have to align yourself with one side or the other.

But at least those that have joined nolabels realize that it is time to "stop fighting, start fixing" and are trying to change...

Small steps grasshopper, small steps.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So I saw it said that the Government will remain open until January 15th. And the debt limit would be good until February 7th.

I think it's funny everyone is patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other over this. "Way to go, team! This problem will never again haunt us. At least not in the near future."

 

[igbomb]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

nolabels.org

Every one of those bios includes the party affiliation in the first sentence. Some people in this country still vote based on party.

Yes I know.. unfortunately Right now the way it is setup they have no choice.. If you want the you have to align yourself with one side or the other.

But at least those that have joined nolabels realize that it is time to "stop fighting, start fixing" and are trying to change...

Small steps grasshopper, small steps.

I find it encouraging that they simply list their party. If they were all Independents or Green Partiers or something, you could be confident that they would have absolutely no ability to get anything done.

Though I'm a little disappointed that none of them spoke up on a national stage (at least I didn't hear anything) and call out this mess while pimping their group. Seemed like the perfect opportunity to appeal to the moderate nature of the nation and recruit some attention.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So I saw it said that the Government will remain open until January 15th. And the debt limit would be good until February 7th.

I think it's funny everyone is patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other over this. "Way to go, team! This problem will never again haunt us. At least not in the near future."

New here?

No. Not the people here. The Government people. I know how the FFA operates. It just strikes me as odd that our Government operates in a similar fashion as here.

 

[snogger]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

nolabels.org

Every one of those bios includes the party affiliation in the first sentence. Some people in this country still vote based on party.

Yes I know.. unfortunately Right now the way it is setup they have no choice.. If you want the you have to align yourself with one side or the other.

But at least those that have joined nolabels realize that it is time to "stop fighting, start fixing" and are trying to change...

Small steps grasshopper, small steps.

I find it encouraging that they simply list their party. If they were all Independents or Green Partiers or something, you could be confident that they would have absolutely no ability to get anything done.

Though I'm a little disappointed that none of them spoke up on a national stage (at least I didn't hear anything) and call out this mess while pimping their group. Seemed like the perfect opportunity to appeal to the moderate nature of the nation and recruit some attention.

They tried.. But the National media basically ignored them as "compromise" is to them.

Today, 52 members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- stood together to call on leaders in Washington to stop fighting and start fixing.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So I saw it said that the Government will remain open until January 15th. And the debt limit would be good until February 7th.

I think it's funny everyone is patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other over this. "Way to go, team! This problem will never again haunt us. At least not in the near future."

New here?

No. Not the people here. The Government people. I know how the FFA operates. It just strikes me as odd that our Government operates in a similar fashion as here.

After they worked out the Sequester deal, they had enough press meets and back-pats to make you think they cured cancer.

I thought the sequester was still going on?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So I saw it said that the Government will remain open until January 15th. And the debt limit would be good until February 7th.

I think it's funny everyone is patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other over this. "Way to go, team! This problem will never again haunt us. At least not in the near future."

New here?

No. Not the people here. The Government people. I know how the FFA operates. It just strikes me as odd that our Government operates in a similar fashion as here.

The two sides still have a big fight ahead of them on anything that would replace the seqeuster, but most people are thinking that if things get bogged down we won't see anyone suggesting a government shutdown or a debt default are weapons to use in the bigger negotiations.

So, baby steps I guess.

 

[Don Quixote]

How long do you guys think it will take to get the government back up and running?

If it is signed into law today, everyone goes back to work tomorrow.

Oh Bull ####!

No...

When the partial government shutdown ends, federal employees who have been furloughed generally would be expected to report for work on their next regular working day.

In most cases, that likely would be tomorrow, if a plan to restore federal agency funding and raise the debt ceiling is approved and signed into law today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/16/furloughed-employees-typically-would-return-on-day-after-shutdown-ends/

 

[timschochet]

Boehner may be craftier than he appears. It sounds like the supposed "conservative/Tea Party revolt" is going to wither away. Per Politico (I know Rich, they're just making it up!) there is no thought of ousting Boehner.

 

[KCitons]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

How would you remove the affiliations? They'd still align themselves with people who think similarly and negotiate with each other to vote for certain things.

could it work the opposite as well. Where people would be more willing to vote based on merit, instead of party line. Not that it would happen right away, but over time it would morph into something beneficial.

As nice as all this sounds, ultimately power resides in a majority. And so even if everyone elected individuals based on individual merit, eventually they would have to compromise to caucus to fashion together some sort of ability to get things done. Or maybe I'm just too pessimistic/cynical.

So if stripped of Dem/Rep title, they would resort to Bloods and Crips?

 

[Schlzm]

Manufacture a crises, "solve it", get hailed as being a hero.

Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

Boehner may be craftier than he appears. It sounds like the supposed "conservative/Tea Party revolt" is going to wither away. Per Politico (I know Rich, they're just making it up!) there is no thought of ousting Boehner.

Who would want the job? Cantor thought he did a few years ago, but after watching Boehner swim around in that pit of vipers, he seems rightfully content to be the next-in-line for right now.

It has a lot of perks.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So I saw it said that the Government will remain open until January 15th. And the debt limit would be good until February 7th.

I think it's funny everyone is patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other over this. "Way to go, team! This problem will never again haunt us. At least not in the near future."

Depends on if this makes it into the final and how Congress acts next time:

The deal that the Senate is now getting set to roll out would include language for a "resolution of disapproval" that would allow Congress to disapprove of a debt-ceiling increase, as opposed to approving of one like it does now. That would mean that, as long as the debt-limit increase is not explicitly disapproved by both chambers with a veto-proof majority, the debt-limit would increase.

 

[timschochet]

So I saw it said that the Government will remain open until January 15th. And the debt limit would be good until February 7th.

I think it's funny everyone is patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other over this. "Way to go, team! This problem will never again haunt us. At least not in the near future."

Depends on if this makes it into the final and how Congress acts next time:

The deal that the Senate is now getting set to roll out would include language for a "resolution of disapproval" that would allow Congress to disapprove of a debt-ceiling increase, as opposed to approving of one like it does now. That would mean that, as long as the debt-limit increase is not explicitly disapproved by both chambers with a veto-proof majority, the debt-limit would increase.

I wasn't aware of that. That is awesome if true! It means the politicians can still please their constituents by opposing raising the debt ceiling, but it will get raised anyhow? That's totally brilliant.

If that language goes through, then nobody can say this wasn't a victory for reasonable people everywhere. In effect, it gets rid of the debt ceiling.

 

[igbomb]

Can someone explain to me why we have a Democrat and a Republican party? What would happen if party affiliations were removed?

nolabels.org

Every one of those bios includes the party affiliation in the first sentence. Some people in this country still vote based on party.

Yes I know.. unfortunately Right now the way it is setup they have no choice.. If you want the you have to align yourself with one side or the other.

But at least those that have joined nolabels realize that it is time to "stop fighting, start fixing" and are trying to change...

Small steps grasshopper, small steps.

I find it encouraging that they simply list their party. If they were all Independents or Green Partiers or something, you could be confident that they would have absolutely no ability to get anything done.

Though I'm a little disappointed that none of them spoke up on a national stage (at least I didn't hear anything) and call out this mess while pimping their group. Seemed like the perfect opportunity to appeal to the moderate nature of the nation and recruit some attention.

They tried.. But the National media basically ignored them as "compromise" is to them.

Today, 52 members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- stood together to call on leaders in Washington to stop fighting and start fixing.

Well I'll be. I never saw anything on this.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So I saw it said that the Government will remain open until January 15th. And the debt limit would be good until February 7th.

I think it's funny everyone is patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other over this. "Way to go, team! This problem will never again haunt us. At least not in the near future."

Depends on if this makes it into the final and how Congress acts next time:

The deal that the Senate is now getting set to roll out would include language for a "resolution of disapproval" that would allow Congress to disapprove of a debt-ceiling increase, as opposed to approving of one like it does now. That would mean that, as long as the debt-limit increase is not explicitly disapproved by both chambers with a veto-proof majority, the debt-limit would increase.

I wasn't aware of that. That is awesome if true! It means the politicians can still please their constituents by opposing raising the debt ceiling, but it will get raised anyhow? That's totally brilliant.

If that language goes through, then nobody can say this wasn't a victory for reasonable people everywhere. In effect, it gets rid of the debt ceiling.

Hooray Republicans!