And more importantly: It seems to be over. Boehner's agreed to hold a vote on the Senate proposal. Cruz has a apparently agreed not to filibuster it. The Senate apparently will vote later this evening. I'm not sure about the House.
Essentially a clean funding and debt ceiling bill. Funding until mid-January and the debt ceiling estimated to be good until February (later with some Treasury tricks.)
The Republicans pretty much got nothing out of it. Neither did the Democrats, other than keeping the country running, which some of us find important. Hopefully the game of chicken not working will make it less likely to be tried next time around. Which is in 3 months. Joy.
Call me crazy, but I think Obama should veto this. Putting the fight off until January is pointless, and just keeps this silliness as a valid negotiation tactic, which is something he claimed he was trying to prevent.
If these nutbags are willing to drive us over a cliff unless they get their way, somebody is going to have to call their bluff. Better to do it now, since the stakes only get higher as times goes on.
spectrevk wrote: Call me crazy, but I think Obama should veto this. Putting the fight off until January is pointless, and just keeps this silliness as a valid negotiation tactic, which is something he claimed he was trying to prevent.
If these nutbags are willing to drive us over a cliff unless they get their way, somebody is going to have to call their bluff. Better to do it now, since the stakes only get higher as times goes on.
That would be crazy.
Veto it and demand what?
There is absolutely no way, no matter what the threat that Congress could pass an actual worked out full budget over the weekend, if that's what you think is needed.
The fight in January is now likely to be much easier than this one. Though it will, almost certainly only result in another continuing resolution. The Republicans have seen that the Democrats will not give in. The Democrats have seen the Republicans are not actually willing to destroy the economy to get their way. There will be another fight. I doubt there will be another shutdown.
thejeff wrote: That would be crazy.
Veto it and demand what?
Whatever he wants. Why not, the House tried it. :P
Paul Watson wrote: Could someone explasin the debt ceiling to me? I mean, Congress approves a budget, Congress approves the revenue measures to meet that budget an dknowingly sets revenue collection below the cost of the budget, how does that not count as implicit authority to raise the debt given Congress decided to spend more money than they get. Where else did they think it would come from? The magic money fairy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE
Long story short the entire system is very very messed up.
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: That would be crazy.
Veto it and demand what?
Whatever he wants. Why not, the House tried it. :P And lost. And Obama isn't stupid or crazy, unlike some.
The House was not at fault for the Government shutdown. It approved the money to keep the government running and the Senate preferred to put the country in jeopardy over ideological differences.
Justin Rocket wrote: The House was not at fault for the Government shutdown. It approved the money to keep the government running and the Senate preferred to put the country in jeopardy over ideological differences. ...right.
"What has happened is that in the last 20 years, America has changed from a producer to a consumer. And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune, the consumer has got to dance. That's the way it is. We used to be a producer - very inflexible at that, and now we are consumers and, finding it difficult to understand. Natural resources and minerals will change your world. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd World. They have bought the 2nd World and put a firm down payment on the 1st one. Controlling your resources we'll control your world. This country has been surprised by the way the world looks now. They don't know if they want to be Matt Dillon or Bob Dylan. They don't know if they want to be diplomats or continue the same policy - of nuclear nightmare diplomacy. John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now."
Gil Scott Herron
B Movie
1981
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: The House was not at fault for the Government shutdown. It approved the money to keep the government running and the Senate preferred to put the country in jeopardy over ideological differences. The Senate was not at fault for the Government shut down. It passed a continuing resolution which funded the government at current levels with no other ideological baggage, which Boehner refused to let the House vote on.
This is what you do when you can't get an actual budget deal. Also remember, BTW, that both the House and the Senate have passed budgets for the year. Very different budgets, admittedly. The Senate has been requesting a conference committee to work out those differences since well before the crisis point. The House has refused to do so.
Above and beyond that, the Senate's CR was the product of negotiations with Boehner back in September. The spending total was far below what Democrats wanted, essentially continuing the sequester funding levels. Boehner either dealt in bad faith or couldn't count votes worth a damn and couldn't deliver House Republican votes on the deal he'd made. In order to pass a bill with only Republican votes, various measures to defund/delay or otherwise gut the ACA were added to the funding. That's the ideology.
And practically speaking, it's a deal the Democrats can't take. Delay a signature law for a year in exchange for 3 months of government funding? What will they have to give up in 3 months to get a few more months? If this kept working for Republicans, why ever pass real appropriations bills? Just demand more concessions when each short term bill expires. And in a year or so, demand that Obamacare be delayed another year. There's still plenty of time to get other goodies in between.
As for negotiating, there was nothing to negotiate. The clean CR was already a compromise position. If the Democrats had been asking for something more, then they'd share the blame, but there would also have been reason to negotiate. Maybe next time the Democrats should go into the crisis with a bill that restores all the sequester funding and adds gun control or ENDA or EFCA or some other liberal idea. Then, they can negotiate their way down to a clean CR. :)
thejeff wrote: In order to pass a bill with only Republican votes, various measures to defund/delay or otherwise gut the ACA were added to the funding. That's the ideology. No. The ideology is the ACA PERIOD. The House (as per its Constitutional powers to do so) signed a CR. The Senate allowed the government to shut down over the ACA rather than accept the House' CR.
This is the same thing (except for the Democrats being suicidal enough to have an actual shut down) that happened with regards to the border fence in 2006(?). The House's right and responsibility to manage funding is called "legislation by appropriation" and is part of the Constitutional checks and balances.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: No. The ideology is the ACA PERIOD. The House (as per its Constitutional powers to do so) signed a CR. The Senate allowed the government to shut down over the ACA rather than accept the House' CR. After the House changed the rules to prevent the shutdown from being avoided without accepting the House's CR.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: No. The ideology is the ACA PERIOD. The House (as per its Constitutional powers to do so) signed a CR. The Senate allowed the government to shut down over the ACA rather than accept the House' CR. After the House changed the rules to prevent the shutdown from being avoided without accepting the House's CR. what are you talking about?
Justin Rocket wrote: what are you talking about? Here.
Justin Rocket wrote: thejeff wrote: In order to pass a bill with only Republican votes, various measures to defund/delay or otherwise gut the ACA were added to the funding. That's the ideology. No. The ideology is the ACA PERIOD. The House (as per its Constitutional powers to do so) signed a CR. The Senate allowed the government to shut down over the ACA rather than accept the House' CR.
This is the same thing (except for the Democrats being suicidal enough to have an actual shut down) that happened with regards to the border fence in 2006(?). The House's right and responsibility to manage funding is called "legislation by appropriation" and is part of the Constitutional checks and balances. Nonsense.
Yes, the House has the Constitutional right to add whatever it pleases to its bills. Whether CRs or other legislation. The Senate has the same Constitutional right to amend those bills and send them back to the Senate. Neither House acted outside of its Constitutional powers, so I don't see why that's important.
Technically, you are correct that the "Senate allowed the government to shut down over the ACA rather than accept the House' CR." It is also correct that the House allowed the government to be shut down over the ACA rather than accept (or even hold a vote on) the Senate's CR.
Once we get past that, you have to look at the motivation. One party is trying to make a major change and threatening disaster if it doesn't get its way. The other is not trying to make any changes, but simply continue working until a larger budget deal can be reached. Remember Democrats have been trying to set up a conference committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate budgets since March.
As for the "same thing in 2006", I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. In 2006, Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. The "Secure Fence Act of 2006" was passed but I didn't see anything about it being passed as part of a continuing resolution or under threat of shutdown. Which the Democrats wouldn't have been able to stop anyway, except possibly with a filibuster.
Regardless, it's not really relevant. I'll readily concede there's nothing necessarily wrong about attaching other measures to any bills, even CRs. Even a little bluffing isn't a big deal. But at the end of the day, the one making the demands is the one responsible for the damage.
Republicans won several of these little skirmishes before over the last few years. The Dems backed down and dealt before actually reaching a shutdown or the debt limit. The "sequester" was fruit of the last big one. They finally decided they can't stop paying the bribes just to push things down the road a little farther.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: what are you talking about? Here. You misrepresented what happened here. The House changed the procedural rule. But, it did not prevent the shutdown from being avoided without accepting House's CR. The House majority, itself, could change the CR.
What it did was prevent the Senate from hijacking the House floor by spamming amendments which were essentially identical back to the House to be repeatedly rejected.
The procedural change was basically a spam filter.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: what are you talking about? Here. Oooh. I'd missed that. Nice.
Isn't it great that the House works on rules they can make up on the spot?
I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the Senate not being able to do anything without at least 60 votes.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: You misrepresented what happened here. As I understand it, last week there was a majority of the House that wanted to accept the Senate version and end the shutdown.
The procedural change prevented any of them, Republican or Democrat, from calling the vote to do so.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: You misrepresented what happened here. As I understand it, last week there was a majority of the House that wanted to accept the Senate version and end the shutdown.
The procedural change prevented any of them, Republican or Democrat, from calling the vote to do so. Precisely.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: You misrepresented what happened here. As I understand it, last week there was a majority of the House that wanted to accept the Senate version and end the shutdown.
The procedural change prevented any of them, Republican or Democrat, from calling the vote to do so. No, it didn't. The procedure change only privileged the motion to dispose of the amendment. It didn't guarantee the motion to dispose would pass.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: You misrepresented what happened here. As I understand it, last week there was a majority of the House that wanted to accept the Senate version and end the shutdown.
The procedural change prevented any of them, Republican or Democrat, from calling the vote to do so. It's not entirely clear. This change would have prevented that and had there actually been a vote it might well have passed. That Boehner didn't bring it up is a pretty good argument that it would have. A failed vote on a clean CR would have made his position much stronger. On the other hand, Boehner's lousy at vote counting and can't ever seem to predict what his caucus will do.
On the gripping hand, Pelosi did make an attempt to get a vote by a discharge petition. That would have required a majority of Representatives to sign up requesting a vote. With the Democrats, enough Republicans had talked about wanting to support a clean CR to reach that majority, but not one signed up.
Justin Rocket wrote: No, it didn't. The procedure change only privileged the motion to dispose of the amendment. It didn't guarantee the motion to dispose would pass. Did a vote happen? Because to my understanding, had a vote been called it would have passed.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: No, it didn't. The procedure change only privileged the motion to dispose of the amendment. It didn't guarantee the motion to dispose would pass. Did a vote happen? Because to my understanding, had a vote been called it would have passed. I can't debate on something you imagine would have happened or extrapolating from there to something always happening.
Justin Rocket wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: You misrepresented what happened here. As I understand it, last week there was a majority of the House that wanted to accept the Senate version and end the shutdown.
The procedural change prevented any of them, Republican or Democrat, from calling the vote to do so. No, it didn't. The procedure change only privileged the motion to dispose of the amendment. It didn't guarantee the motion to dispose would pass. You misread. Or more accurately the article was unclear.
The Rule in the sign was the original rule. The change
Quote: added language dictating that any motion "may be offered only by the majority Leader or his designee." This has more details.
Justin Rocket wrote: I can't debate on something you imagine would have happened or extrapolating from there to something always happening. You can answer the question posed however.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I just think it's insane that we've reached a point where if someone isn't working two full time jobs that they're considered "lazy". Government shut down aside, the fact that our culture and economy has reached the point where the only way to survive is to have a multiple income household each working several jobs is just crap.
We need to start evaluating where we are as a people, and start looking at money versus means in a very real way.
What should a full time job at minimum wage afford someone? Probably a small, 1 bedroom apartment, a used car (without a payment, I'm talking like paying for it straight up), furniture, groceries, and the ability to go out twice a month (movies, food, bar, buy gaming books, w/e).
You have a B.A or B.S.? Great, probably a decent apartment, a newer vehicle with a reasonable payment, groceries, go out twice a month, and enough money to contribute to an IRA or 401k.
Get your masters? Now you're talking, here's where you should be able to get a home, have children, all those important things that we look at when we're kids going, "that's what the end goal is".
None of this happens any more. A college degree is all but a waste. Even if you get a "decent" job, the debt you incurred earning the degree puts you behind the guy who's been working at McDonald's for 4 years. Hell, that guy probably makes 40-50k as a manager now, and you're starting off at 25-35k (and probably not even in your field).
These are the problems we need to work on, and as a Republican, I'm sick that my party (or more specifically the Tea party ass-hats) are caught up in an ideological battle instead of a pragmatic one. Quit posturing for the next election and focus on fixing the country please.
The Senate has voted: 81-18 in favor.
The cloture vote was 83-16, but apparently once cloture passed there was unanimous consent to move directly to a vote instead of insisting on the 30 hours of post-cloture debate. Which means the votes against cloture were merely symbolic. Of course, any Senator willing to push into real risk of default merely for a short delay with no hope of changing the outcome would be completely insane. But he would have that right.
The House is debating (by which I mean making campaign/fund-raising speeches) and will vote within the hour.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Don't feed the troll. Instead, recognize his motivation...bitter, bitter defeat.
Mortag1981 wrote: I just think it's insane that we've reached a point where if someone isn't working two full time jobs that they're considered "lazy". Government shut down aside, the fact that our culture and economy has reached the point where the only way to survive is to have a multiple income household each working several jobs is just crap.
We need to start evaluating where we are as a people, and start looking at money versus means in a very real way.
What should a full time job at minimum wage afford someone? Probably a small, 1 bedroom apartment, a used car (without a payment, I'm talking like paying for it straight up), furniture, groceries, and the ability to go out twice a month (movies, food, bar, buy gaming books, w/e).
You have a B.A or B.S.? Great, probably a decent apartment, a newer vehicle with a reasonable payment, groceries, go out twice a month, and enough money to contribute to an IRA or 401k.
Get your masters? Now you're talking, here's where you should be able to get a home, have children, all those important things that we look at when we're kids going, "that's what the end goal is".
None of this happens any more. A college degree is all but a waste. Even if you get a "decent" job, the debt you incurred earning the degree puts you behind the guy who's been working at McDonald's for 4 years. Hell, that guy probably makes 40-50k as a manager now, and you're starting off at 25-35k (and probably not even in your field).
These are the problems we need to work on, and as a Republican, I'm sick that my party (or more specifically the Tea party ass-hats) are caught up in an ideological battle instead of a pragmatic one. Quit posturing for the next election and focus on fixing the country please.
As a start for what you want, how about a minimum wage increase?
It's well below what it used to be, adjusted for inflation.
I know, I should be doing homework instead of padding my postcount.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As a start for what you want, how about a minimum wage increase?
It's well below what it used to be, adjusted for inflation.
That is a start, but then the value of a college education is worth even less than it currently is. We spent an entire generation telling kids, "If you want a good job you need to go to college."
Now those kids have insurmountable debt, have to live at home (which is one of the fastests ways to make someone feel like a failure), and have to accept whatever minimum wage job or demeaning corporate job they can get a hold on.
What we need is to hold business accountable to the needs of the workers in their employ. I have no idea how, but the fact that right now there's a flood of highly qualified individuals in just about any field (due to the economy, job lay offs, etc.) means that people coming right out of college can't compete in the job market. Who would hire someone who just graduated when they can get a vet of 10+ years for the same wage?
I guess I'm just ranting about the horrific division between the "middle" class and the wealthy. Seriously these days the only differences between poor and middle class is one bad event (medical, legal, you name it), whereas the wealthy can take several hits and pretty much not feel it. That's the issue right now. When we create jobs, it's low paying stuff that doesn't help improve anyone's standing (except potentially from "on the street" to "poor") and the class divide only gets worse.
Mortag1981 wrote:
I guess I'm just ranting about the horrific division between the "middle" class and the wealthy. Seriously these days the only differences between poor and middle class is one bad event (medical, legal, you name it), whereas the wealthy can take several hits and pretty much not feel it. That's the issue right now. When we create jobs, it's low paying stuff that doesn't help improve anyone's standing (except potentially from "on the street" to "poor") and the class divide only gets worse.
That smells like...UNIONISM! :p
Mortag1981 wrote: As a start for what you want, how about a minimum wage increase?
It's well below what it used to be, adjusted for inflation.
That is a start, but then the value of a college education is worth even less than it currently is. We spent an entire generation telling kids, "If you want a good job you need to go to college."
Now those kids have insurmountable debt, have to live at home (which is one of the fastests ways to make someone feel like a failure), and have to accept whatever minimum wage job or demeaning corporate job they can get a hold on.
What we need is to hold business accountable to the needs of the workers in their employ. I have no idea how, but the fact that right now there's a flood of highly qualified individuals in just about any field (due to the economy, job lay offs, etc.) means that people coming right out of college can't compete in the job market. Who would hire someone who just graduated when they can get a vet of 10+ years for the same wage?
I guess I'm just ranting about the horrific division between the "middle" class and the wealthy. Seriously these days the only differences between poor and middle class is one bad event (medical, legal, you name it), whereas the wealthy can take several hits and pretty much not feel it. That's the issue right now. When we create jobs, it's low paying stuff that doesn't help improve anyone's standing (except potentially from "on the street" to "poor") and the class divide only gets worse. As Shifty said: Unions.
Bring back the Employee Free Choice Act.
The ACA may help with the medical bad events, though probably not enough.
thejeff wrote: As a start for what you want, how about a minimum wage increase?
It's well below what it used to be, adjusted for inflation.
Make businesses compete more for labor (either by tight controls on immigration and foreign workers or growing small businesses or, better yet, both) and wages will increase.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The problem with unions is that they don't just stick to representing the business needs of their members. Too often they become a political machine in their own right, and focus on maintaining power for themselves instead of creating an environment to allow people to succeed. For example, union's who take their member dues and use it as campaign contributions for a senator. Maybe the union wants that guy in place, but the individual members may not.
This brings up another topic though, campaign finance reform.
TriOmegaZero wrote: I know, I should be doing homework instead of padding my postcount. Probably. If it makes you feel better, I've been there. :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mortag1981 wrote: The problem with unions is that they don't just stick to representing the business needs of their members.
The blame for that falls fairly and squarely on the members for being bad members.
TriOmegaZero wrote: I know, I should be doing homework instead of padding my postcount. +1
Shifty wrote: Mortag1981 wrote: The problem with unions is that they don't just stick to representing the business needs of their members.
The blame for that falls fairly and squarely on the members for being bad members. Unions are often democratic (at least ideally), no? And a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Unions are often democratic (at least ideally), no? And a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner.
Oh the two wolves and a lamb line, a bit hackneyed by now isn't it?
Shifty wrote: Justin Rocket wrote:
Unions are often democratic (at least ideally), no? And a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner.
Oh the two wolves and a lamb line, a bit hackneyed by now isn't it? Say that again when DOMA is repealed and pot is legal federally for medical reasons. Leftists tend to forget that, for some of us minorities, centralizing power in the federal government is legitimatelly seen as a horror show.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mortag1981 wrote: The problem with unions is that they don't just stick to representing the business needs of their members. Too often they become a political machine in their own right, and focus on maintaining power for themselves instead of creating an environment to allow people to succeed. For example, union's who take their member dues and use it as campaign contributions for a senator. Maybe the union wants that guy in place, but the individual members may not.
This brings up another topic though, campaign finance reform.
Often the intent of going beyond supporting "the business needs of their members" is to change conditions to better support those same needs.
In the most blatant case, unions couldn't very well support the needs of their members if they were banned.
And they've been doing this (and beyond) since the early union days. Was the political fight for the 40 hour workweek and overtime pay sticking to representing the business needs of their members?
Is opposing a Senator who tries to weaken unions at every opportunity going beyond? I'm thinking right now of Bob Corker of Tennessee who's fighting against a union that Volkswagen actually wants in their plant.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: Shifty wrote: Mortag1981 wrote: The problem with unions is that they don't just stick to representing the business needs of their members.
The blame for that falls fairly and squarely on the members for being bad members. Unions are often democratic (at least ideally), no? And a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner. Obviously we should just go back to putting one of the wolves in charge.
Of course, the more accurate version would be a dozen wolves and 10,000 sheep.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Why would I?
What does that have to do with the overused and overplayed wolves and lambs?
Pro-tip: That isn't democracy, that's a cute quip that takes a rather corner case view of a comical situation.
Justin Rocket wrote: Shifty wrote: Justin Rocket wrote:
Unions are often democratic (at least ideally), no? And a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner.
Oh the two wolves and a lamb line, a bit hackneyed by now isn't it? Say that again when DOMA is repealed and pot is legal federally for medical reasons. Leftists tend to forget that, for some of us minorities, centralizing power in the federal government is legitimatelly seen as a horror show. Much of DOMA was struck down recently and medical marijuana will be legal federally within a decade. Long before then, the feds will stop interfering with state medical marijuana laws.
Sometimes the feds lag behind. Sometimes they push ahead. And honestly, they're still better than a lot of states on gay rights. Some of the anti-gay amendments to state constitutions will be left in place long after the SC strikes down anti gay marriage laws.
thejeff wrote:
Of course, the more accurate version would be a dozen wolves and 10,000 sheep.
True.
Free elections depend on an educated public - educated by the government - er,...
*soma depletion detected*
thejeff wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: Shifty wrote: Justin Rocket wrote:
Unions are often democratic (at least ideally), no? And a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner.
Oh the two wolves and a lamb line, a bit hackneyed by now isn't it? Say that again when DOMA is repealed and pot is legal federally for medical reasons. Leftists tend to forget that, for some of us minorities, centralizing power in the federal government is legitimatelly seen as a horror show. Much of DOMA was struck down recently and medical marijuana will be legal federally within a decade. Long before then, the feds will stop interfering with state medical marijuana laws.
Sometimes the feds lag behind. Sometimes they push ahead. And honestly, they're still better than a lot of states on gay rights. Some of the anti-gay amendments to state constitutions will be left in place long after the SC strikes down anti gay marriage laws. "Much of DOMA was struck down recently and medical marijuana will be legal federally within a decade" This doesn't change the accuracy of the democracy definition.
The feds are a lot worse than a lot of states wrt gay rights and pot as well. I don't need every state to be perfect wrt gay rights and pot. I just need the federal government to let a few of them be so that those who need them can move to them. The neanderthal states can go to hell.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
bugleyman wrote: Don't feed the troll. Instead, recognize his motivation...bitter, bitter defeat. It must really, really suck to be a Republican tonight. I mean, it's been an awful year for Republicans in general, but this last week takes the cake.
Stolen from reddit which stole it from somewhere else:
"Funny. During the evolution of Republican demands the medical device tax came up time and again. It raises $30 billion over 10 years to help pay for Obamacare. The GOP just wasted a sum very close to that total amount. So, if you're scoring at home, the GOP cost us $24 billion trying to eliminate $30 billion in revenue..."
A $24 billion temper tantrum. God I hope they try this again in January.
The Dystopia is delayed to January 2014 due to bad weather...
ends in crazy rant.
yellowdingo wrote:
ends in crazy rant.
*facepalm*
|
