Lynn Jenkins (R) [Pic]

Submitted by: elkingo 4 years ago in

""I have asked to have my pay withheld until the government is operating again.""
There are 113 comments:
Male 40,752
[quote]The law was passed then reviewed and found to be constitutional.[/quote]
@broizfam: You are aware that slavery was legally passed and found constitutional by the Supreme Court, right? you KNOW THIS yes?

@WhoDat: And where does Biden live? Answer me that Mr.Genius! Last time I checked the Home of the VP was INSIDE DC CITY LIMITS eh?

Why are you:
#1 Defending an idiot
#2 Trolling?

Both should be "beneath you" eh?

@rob79: You are correct! In fact? It`s A TAX! NOT A BILL AT ALL! It`s... A... TAX! That`s what the Supreme Court said...
0
Reply
Female 543
@liabach
you just made my day
0
Reply
Male 3,231
by Grabthars hammer, Oh what a savings
0
Reply
Male 194
Anyone think how we can see this letter? The chief admin didn`t put it online, and the postal services sure as poo didn`t.

This is just another case of "look how good I am!" from someone who probably doesn`t even need that money.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Robb79: As you can see from my note to Elkingo, I misunderstood you. I apologize.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
robb79,
I don`t think he should, actually. I also don`t think we should have this law. I also think it`s a crappy reason to force a shutdown that punishes only the people depending on the federal government, possibly even leading to default. By the way, since when was big business a friend to the Democratic party? It`s his constituency he`s forcing it onto...they`re his "friends".
0
Reply
Male 23
@ brozifam

The law passed, was held up by the Supreme Court, you`re right.

Why does Barack get to say "wait, I changed my mind" let`s just delay the things my friends don`t like?
0
Reply
Male 23
@ elkingo Thank you! For once some sanity!
@ Squrlz

I never called the ACA a bill. It needs to be funded. There is a spending bill. Spending bills FUND things. THE ACA IS A LAW!!!!!!!!!

"wait", says the small mousy voice in the corner, "why does Barry get to change laws whenever he wants? This was agreed to like bargaining over a drink"

Spin it in whichever direction you`d like. I haven`t seen any action to repeal the ACA, only delay the individual mandate for a year. Barry`s friends got that consideration.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]I`ve never quite understood that advice from Biden. It seems to me that it would make more sense to fire one shot in the air to get his attention, then point the still loaded gun at his head to get his compliance. [/quote]

That`s because he`s a moron......
0
Reply
Male 6,077
@masmas,
You`re right. The law was passed then reviewed and found to be constitutional. The GOP has decided that the shutdown is Obama`s fault because he didn`t say, "Oh, you changed your mind? Let`s just forget it, then!" They purposefully and specifically decided to cause a governmental shut down, punishing numerous Americans (but not Obama), to make Obama look bad because he didn`t want to negotiate a law THAT WAS ALREADY PASSED! They blame him because they won`t seem like such a$$holes to the people who are dumb enough, or just knee-jerk Republican enough, to accept that excuse. It`s just freaking pathetic.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
I`ve never quite understood that advice from Biden. It seems to me that it would make more sense to fire one shot in the air to get his attention, then point the still loaded gun at his head to get his compliance.
0
Reply
Male 2,106
Lyyyynnnnnnnnnnnn Jenkins!
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@ForSquirel - I know what the laws are, I`m just informing 5Cats who apparently thinks it`s illegal to fire a gun anywhere, which doesn`t make sense. I didn`t feel the need to go into all the details.
0
Reply
Male 2,389
"It`s only illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits"

@whodat, that`s not 100% accurate. There are some schools outside of city limits. It`s illegal to discharge any firearm within 1000` of a school zone, although discharging said firearm on your property still is.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"you`ve still ignored the ILLEGALITY of this Vice-Presidential advice..."

It`s only illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits, not every American lives in a big city like New York, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, etc. I go upstate to the Hudson Valley where I grew up to visit friends and shoot. Wanna know where we go shoot? In the backyard.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]...to set a precedent for the minority to pick and choose which portions of the government they restore?![/quote]

@Squrlz4: Last time I looked? the Repubs held the MAJORITY in the House... and the "precident" was set decades ago to do THIS VERY THING.

[quote]And the people being paid to close it off can`t be paid to do that instead?[/quote]

Exactly @McGovern! The point is it costs MORE to SHUT the parks than to operate them!
0
Reply
Male 6,077
@masmas,
You`re right. The law was passed then reviewed and found to be constitutional. The GOP has decided that the shutdown is Obama`s fault because he didn`t say, "Oh, you changed your mind? Let`s just forget it, then!" They purposefully and specifically decided to cause a governmental shut down, punishing numerous Americans (but not Obama), to make Obama look bad because he didn`t want to negotiate a law THAT WAS ALREADY PASSED! They blame him because they won`t seem like such a$$holes to the people who are dumb enough, or just knee-jerk Republican enough, to accept that excuse. It`s just freaking pathetic.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Why on earth is one person even able to block votes like that?[/quote]
@Squrlz4: @HumanAction`s answer was perfect! I`d just like to add:

Boehner: Refuses to fund ACA
Reid: Refuses to fund anything BUT the ACA
Obama: Will VETO any cut to ACA
Obama: Refuses to even discuss the issue

Notice how Obama got "double counted"? Because the shoe fits, Cinderella!

And if Boehner didn`t have the support of his party? or Reid or Obama? They`d quickly change their mind. It`s NOT "just one person" it`s the US Public, OK?

@Musuko42: In Australia the party in power KIVKED OUT their own Prime Minister, these things do happen! House and Senate speakers have been turfed before, idk when, but I`m sure it`s happened.

So yes, these people CAN lose their position if they run too far a-fowl of their party`s wishes...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]No one reloads out in the open, you take cover for the second or two it takes to reload.[/quote]
@WhoDat you`ve still ignored the ILLEGALITY of this Vice-Presidential advice...
And how many shots can the crooks get off in those few seconds?
Biden`s advice is BAD. Simply shouting "I`ve got a loaded shotgun" is just as effective 99% of the time as "shots in the air". Yes? The vast majority of "defending yourself with a gun" does NOT require a shot to be fired! Yes?

@Squrlz4: But the SENATE BILL funds ObamaCare and the Repubs want that on a SEPERATE Bill! Which is their RIGHT. Yes?
Just as the Senate "modified" a previously passed Bill to INCLUDE ACA, the House wants to re-modify it!
WHY is it OK with YOU for one to do so, but NOT the other? It`s perfectly legal for both. It`s been done 1,000 times before!
So the House has sent 20+ OTHER CRs to the Senate. Who refuses to pass them.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Sorry 5Cats, I`m not sure what comment of mine you`re responding to there. Can you clarify?[/quote]
Sorry @Musuko42 I was in a rush: waited 20 minutes anyhow! lolz
I refer to why I didn`t care about @Mad_Gremlyn (or whomever it was) wasn`t talking about MY military service. I didn`t "misunderstand him" as you suggested, I simply did not care!
Sorry I buggered up my reply.

[quote]Does one side`s shady dealings justify the other side being shady, though?[/quote]

So what SHOULD the GOP do? Just sit back and let Obama spend 2 TRILLION (over 10 years) on harmful TAXES? Heck no! They were sent to Washington to GOVERN and that`s just what they`re tying to do!
Of course Obama and the Dem Senate were sent for the same reason, and THEY are trying to do it too...

The "give the Dems all the rope they want" plan was considered, and rejected.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]If we weren`t, then why form societies at all?[/quote]
To protect us from foreign enemies and to ensure personal liberties are protected from each other.

My issue with "the greater good" is that it lacks principles; it sets arbitrary points and that is unacceptable to me.

For example, we probably agree that a billionaire shouldn`t buy a golden yacht when children are starving. What about the person with a 4,000 sqft. house though? That`s more than the average. What about the person who makes $60,000/year? That`s in excess of the average, too.

I don`t think you`d argue that someone making $60k/year should hand over his "excess" income. If not, then this idea of spreading wealth around isn`t based at all on principles - it`s based on arbitrary points along the line.

Unfortunately, as humans, we have a tendency to set the point beyond ourselves. That`s not OK to me.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Be realistic now.[/quote]

I am being realistic now. They`re paying people to keep people out of these places when they could be paying people to keep them open just for political agendas.
[quote]Do you really want an untrained person handling pesticides? Or dangerous machinery? Mowers, trimmers, etc? [/quote]

I own a house and do all that if you need training for it you`re a special kind of stupid and not qualified. Your thought process is supporting bloated bureaucratic bulls hittery.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"And the people being paid to close it off can`t be paid to do that instead?"

No. Why should they? If you`re hired to do job A, you`re not going to be happy to be asked to do job B.

And plenty of people have contracts defining their job role. And union backing.

Not to mention: these kinds of things aren`t all just monkey work. Do you really want an untrained person handling pesticides? Or dangerous machinery? Mowers, trimmers, etc?

Be realistic now.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"Sure, but is it OK to hurt others to prevent this natural differences? I don`t think so."

I agree. But I don`t see taxation (and market manipulation and control, etc, assuming that`s what we`re really talking about) as that happening.

Collectively, we`ve built this notion of democracy and law with the understanding that we collectively make rules, then all agree to follow those rules, even if we don`t like them. And if we don`t like them, we can speak against them and attempt to change them.

What`s happened, essentially, is that the rules this system has chosen involves all of us sacrificing a small wound, financially, in order to help those who are suffering the big wounds.

Ultumately, we`re all making small sacrifices for the collective good. If we weren`t, then why form societies at all?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]4.4 million people visit that monument every year. If 4 million people visited your house, don`t you think you`d need to clean up after them every once in a while?[/quote]

And the people being paid to close it off can`t be paid to do that instead?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Read this about Park Shurdowns.

Obama is hiring guards to keep parks closed at the tune of 50k a year. It is simply stupid that Obama is holding parks hostage, when it never had to be that way in the past during a shutdown.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Cut the grass? Pull the weeds? Pick up the litter? Patch and repair wear and tear to the paving? Secure and monitor it against vandals at night?"

It requires no park rangers when open. That was the point I was trying to make.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"WW2 Monument - required NO ONE to operate, and costs NOTHING to maintain."

4.4 million people visit that monument every year. If 4 million people visited your house, don`t you think you`d need to clean up after them every once in a while?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]...those things seem horrible to me.[/quote]
Sure, but is it OK to hurt others to prevent this natural differences? I don`t think so. I don`t think it`s ever OK and morally justifiable to take something that is not mine by force.

Additionally, there are wide-reaching consequences in doing so. One of which is economic turmoil and recession.

The best way to help those people who are disadvantaged is to promote the economy and to shift the entire line upwards. The worst way is to try and bring the rest of the line down.

[quote]The American dream...needs to be more realistic, and more attainable.[/quote]
This I agree with entirely.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@elkingo

"WW2 Monument - required NO ONE to operate, and costs NOTHING to maintain"

Cut the grass? Pull the weeds? Pick up the litter? Patch and repair wear and tear to the paving? Secure and monitor it against vandals at night?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Enough people will be in the path of that bomb through no fault of their own, and that still makes it a tragedy best avoided in my eyes.[/quote]
While I agree with the sentiment, where we differ is that I do not think that it can be avoided. One way or another, either we stay stagnated or we deal with a correction.

[quote]Then that`d be a terrible shame, and no reason not to keep searching for it.[/quote]
I agree; I`m merely suggesting that the precedent exists that no such solution can be had.

[quote]where the only factor governing your attainment of happiness is your own effort towards it[/quote]
Hey now, you`re sounding like me. I agree entirely with this. Where we differ is how we think it can be exacted. I think that indebting future generations so that we can live more lavishly than we can afford breaks this rule.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

To be denied the ability to obtain your own happiness through something outside of your control, such as the abilities you were born with, or the wealth of your parents, or the turmoil of the economy...

...those things seem horrible to me.

Similarly, I find it horrible for certain kinds of happiness to be promoted unreleastically; telling everyone that they can become the president one day (as one extreme), or convincing people to give millionaires an easy ride on taxes because they too can become a millionaire one day.

The American dream...needs to be more realistic, and more attainable. It should be less about deluding a street sweeper into thinking he can be a millionaire, and more about making sweeping streets a job a man can be happy doing.

Oh dear, I got sidetracked. Sorry. (vote for me).
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"I got the sense that you would really prefer to see as much of the goverment shut down as possible for as long as possible. True?"

Can I answer this one?

Hell, to the yes. I am a radical conservative who believes the less government we have, the better.

For example: WW2 Monument - required NO ONE to operate, and costs NOTHING to maintain. To close, it required gubment "park rangers".

I don`t need the government to tell me when, how, and why I can walk around and look at stuff.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"Sure, but in this case you most likely made choices that put you in the bombs path. It`s not randomly/arbitrarily chosen."

None of us have supreme control over our own lives. We are all at least partially at the mercy of dumb luck, and the choices of others.

Enough people will be in the path of that bomb through no fault of their own, and that still makes it a tragedy best avoided in my eyes.

"Well, what if a system doesn`t exist that has no losers?"

Then that`d be a terrible shame, and no reason not to keep searching for it.

That whole persuit of happiness thing. I`ve always taken it to mean the provision of a fair playing field, where the only factor governing your attainment of happiness is your own effort towards it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Squrlz

[quote]Are you saying you would prefer to see 90% of the federal government permanently shut down?[/quote]
Absolutely.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction:

[quote]From current levels, I would prefer to see the federal government at about 10% with the states taking up the slack.[/quote]
Allow me to clarify here: Are you saying you would prefer to see 90% of the federal government permanently shut down?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Squrlz

[quote]You think it would be intelligent to set a precedent for the minority to pick and choose which portions of the government they restore?![/quote]
I think they`re being intellectually dishonest - at best. I don`t think it is appropriate to criticize Republicans over people not being paid, and then turn around and refuse to vote on a bill that would do just that. Like I said, I have no other reasonable explanation other than they are trying to make it "hurt" more.

[quote]True?[/quote]
As much as can be responsibly limited. Like I said before, 85% of the government is still there; this is hardly a shutdown. From current levels, I would prefer to see the federal government at about 10% with the states taking up the slack.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Squrlz4Sale

I see... I thought he was talking about the CR being a bill; and not the ACA Law.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Musuko42 - Yes, they did gain additional power, and a lot of it. All of the politicians fighting against this now, are keeping their campaign promises to fight it if elected.

It basically boils down to the people do not want it because it is a very poorly written law, with no plan to enact it or pay for it.

TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already Party. Basically that is what it boils down to. We are tired of being taxed to death to the point we cannot even sustain ourselves.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]The Hiroshima option. Benefits more people in the long run.[/quote]
Exactly.

[quote]But sucks to be you if you`re one of those who happens to be under the bomb.[/quote]
Sure, but in this case you most likely made choices that put you in the bombs path. It`s not randomly/arbitrarily chosen.

[quote]I really don`t like any system that inherently plans for casualties.[/quote]
Well, what if a system doesn`t exist that has no losers? The precedent certainly suggests that this is the case.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
There actually is a way to force Boehner to put the bill up for a vote. I`ve never heard of it before but it`s called a Discharge Petition.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction:

[quote]These bills all allow temporary funding for various aspects of the government and DO NOT MENTION OBAMACARE. Reid, and the Senate, are blocking them.[/quote]
~facepaw~ OF COURSE he`s blocking them. You think it would be intelligent to set a precedent for the minority to pick and choose which portions of the government they restore?!

Honestly.

Let`s get it out in the open, HumanAction. From our conversation last night, I got the sense that you would really prefer to see as much of the goverment shut down as possible for as long as possible. True?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"I believe that, in terms of net loss, the less damaging option is to let the bottom drop out so that we can recover now."

The Hiroshima option. Benefits more people in the long run.

But sucks to be you if you`re one of those who happens to be under the bomb.

I really don`t like any system that inherently plans for casualties.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Squrlz4Sale

Yeah, that. There must surely be a way of forcing a getting past the blockade of one man. The whole checks and balances thing.

Hah, and yeah I`m aware the same argument can be, and is, used against Obama. It`s funny how there`s parallels all over the place in this mess.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Surely the economy exists to serve humanity, not the other way around.[/quote]
I agree entirely. It appears we merely disagree about the means in which this can be most successfully achieved.

I believe that, in terms of net loss, the less damaging option is to let the bottom drop out so that we can recover now. In my opinion, the only other option it to continue in this recession indefinitely, and still have the bottom drop out later.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"The majority leader of both Congresses has the responsibility to call a vote on proposed bills. If they refuse to do so, then they effectively stop the bill."

That sounds like a lot of power in one person`s hands, and we`re witnessing the abuse (depending on your persepective) of it right now.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Musuko: *Now* you`re getting it. You ask a great question. It`s a matter of protocol and a number of Republicans are said to be exploring a way to hold the vote even if it`s against the Speaker of the House`s wishes.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"The best thing they can do is to let the bottom drop out, get out of the way, and let the market recover naturally."

That way sounds like it would involve a lot of human casualities.

Surely the economy exists to serve humanity, not the other way around.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Why on earth is one person even able to block votes like that?[/quote]
The majority leader of both Congresses has the responsibility to call a vote on proposed bills. If they refuse to do so, then they effectively stop the bill.

That being said, if the House truly wanted to vote, they could depose Boehner and replace him. As we`ve seen though, it doesn`t appear that they have the numbers to do so. The logical conclusion, then, is that Boehner is blocking the vote with the support of the House.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@5Cats - "During which time the criminals will just sit around?"

No one reloads out in the open, you take cover for the second or two it takes to reload. Leaving yourself exposed like that in the middle of a fight is a good way to get killed.

"Shooting shotguns into the air until they`re empty if you THINK criminals are threatening you?"

The sound of a shotgun blast is enough to stop many would-be criminals, making them sh*t their pants and run away. In many cases they`re turning to crime in desperation and are just as scared, if not more scared, than the person they attempt to steal from.

"Y R U So grumpy lately?"

I`m not being grumpy at all, you`re mistaken. I`m calmly stating my side of the argument and/or answering your questions to the best of my ability. I apologize if my best is not good enough for you, you don`t have to be a grump about it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Couldn`t later, more slowly, more carefully, with fewer casualties, be a better option?[/quote]
Well, I suppose you could label me an Austrian in that regard.

When the government interferes with the market in any way (whether good or bad), the market becomes distorted from its natural state. The longer and more aggressive the interference, the greater the distortion.

Unfortunately, when a market is distorted, it "tries/wants" to go back to its natural state. At this point, the government can continue to hold it at the distorted state indefinitely, or, it will correct.

In my opinion, the government caused the recession; I can argue that further for anyone who wishes. Now, they`re stagnating the recession. The best thing they can do is to let the bottom drop out, get out of the way, and let the market recover naturally.

Of course, that`s just my opinion.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Squrlz4Sale

Why on earth is one person even able to block votes like that?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Squrlz

Oh, c`mon - don`t be so one-sided. You know very well that Reid is blocking bills in the Senate from coming to a vote as well.

Here, read through some of the Bills Boehner has allowed the vote on and Reid has blocked: Speaker.gov.

These bills all allow temporary funding for various aspects of the government and DO NOT MENTION OBAMACARE. Reid, and the Senate, are blocking them.

A bill passed on the 8th 420-0 (All the Dems in the House voted for it) called the Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act; it would ensure that those federal employees still working will be paid on-time.

The Senate blocked it. What other reason could there be to block such a bill than to make the American people "hurt" more? They are punishing us and then blaming it on the Republicans; that`s messed up.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction & Musuko:

I think you are both lacking an understanding of a key point in all this: The Senate has passed a bill to keep the government open, the "continuing resolution." That bill, if voted on RIGHT NOW by the House, would PASS and our government would be funded--even with the Tea Partiers elected in 2010.

Why hasn`t the House been able to vote on that bill and AVOID this entire mess? Because of one person: John Boehner. You see, there aren`t enough Tea Partiers in the House to prevent a "clean" (i.e., non-extortionist) CR from passing. But there ARE enough Tea Partiers within the ranks of the Republicans, however, to prevent John Boehner from holding onto his speakership if he offends them.

If you still don`t understand the above, please read it again. It`s central to the whole discussion.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

Yup, that was my question.

"In my opinion, the sooner the better; it will hurt more the longer we wait."

Couldn`t later, more slowly, more carefully, with fewer casualties, be a better option?

After all, there`s no real rush: nobody`s coming knocking for America to pay back the debt, and you`re in no danger of being unable to pay it back (self-inflicted defaults aside).

"I don`t think Republicans really had a choice. What other recourse was there to stop a bill they never wanted?"

Frankly, I don`t know. If I did, I would probably try to be a politician.

I could be an idealist and say that they should attempt to rationally discuss and debate and persuade the opposing side to come around to their views. But then it would be quite rightly pointed out to me that this can`t happen if the other side is refusing to negotiate.

So...I genuinely don`t know.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Fools

I think the question was regarding how the Tea Party, which was unable to prevent the passing of ACA in March 2010, is now able to prevent the funding of it.

In this case, the overwhelming Tea Party victory in late 2010 is the reason. Yes, they lost some power in 2012; however, they gained far more in 2010 than they lost in 2012.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Ah, so they gained additional power in the meantime? That makes sense."

No. The Tea Party came to power in the 2010 midterm elections. They actually lost ground in the 2012 elections.

The Republicans lost seats in the Senate and the House in 2012, thought they still hold a House majority.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Isn`t there a bit of a time lag for the effects to be felt?[/quote]
That`s a valid point. I don`t suspect there will be a big market reaction either way, but I suppose it would take some amount of time to materialize.

[quote]But is right now, during a shaky recession, really the best time for this battle?[/quote]
Well the market is going to correct at some point - that`s inevitable. I don`t think there`s every going to be a "good" time for a correction. In my opinion, the sooner the better; it will hurt more the longer we wait.

[quote]Does one side`s shady dealings justify the other side being shady, though?[/quote]
Probably not, but, I don`t think Republicans really had a choice. What other recourse was there to stop a bill they never wanted? Democrats refused to listen to, or negotiate with, Republicans on this from the start.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Elkingo:

[quote]Maybe you should re-read his comment... he didn`t make the claim that the ACA was a "bill."[/quote]
Au contraire, he did:

"The CR isn`t a bill? Pass the clean "BILL" they say? ACA is part of the CR...." He was responding to my statement to HumanAction that the ACA is a law and not a bill. Robb79`s erroneous understanding was that because the ACA is "part of" the CR, it is also, like the CR itself, a bill.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

Does one side`s shady dealings justify the other side being shady, though?

Neither side seems to have done anything illegal, from what I`ve been hearing here. But both have been "shady".

Is this really a case of both sides pointing at the other and yelling "But he started it"?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

"@Musuko42: I don`t care what trolls say, really. I don`t see why I should."

Sorry 5Cats, I`m not sure what comment of mine you`re responding to there. Can you clarify?

@elkingo

"Elections."

Ah, so they gained additional power in the meantime? That makes sense.

@HumanAction

"However, the economy didn`t even blink when 800,000 people didn`t show up to work."

Isn`t there a bit of a time lag for the effects to be felt?

"If anything, taking the stand now and accepting that we cannot continue to spend more than we earn, is the moral decision."

But is right now, during a shaky recession, really the best time for this battle?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Did something change?[/quote]
Yes; when the law was passed, the House majority were Democrats. Now, it is Republicans.

Most people don`t really understand how shady the ACA`s passing was.

First off, all funding MUST originate from the House. The Senate knew this, so tied ACA onto an unrelated bill called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act which had passed the House unanimously.

Once it came back to the House in 2010, not a single Republican voted for it. 34 Democrats even voted against it. Nonetheless, it passed in March 2010 219-212.

The election later that year resulted in a resounding win by Republicans with the House majority suddenly shifting to them. Since then, and before then, Republicans have been against the ACA.

They rammed ACA through because they were afraid of losing the 2010 election and knew that Republicans would never support it.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"how did the Tea Party, which I`ve heard is a minority part of the Republicans, manage to muster the majority needed to stop the budget?"

Elections.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
"@5Cats - It takes all of 2 seconds for me to load a breechloading double barrel shotgun."

@WhoDat: During which time the criminals will just sit around? It`s STUPID ADVICE ok? Shooting shotguns into the air until they`re empty if you THINK criminals are threatening you? Seriously?
Y R U So grumpy lately?

@Musuko42: I don`t care what trolls say, really. I don`t see why I should.

"Except President Obama didn`t create PPACA...he just signed the bill."

@McThstlpnts & @Squrlz4: Seriously? He CAMPAIGNED on it! He HELPED WRITE IT! It`s HIS SIGNATURE PIECE of legislation! By his own words, not some "vast right wing conspiracy" OK?


Link To An Overview Of ACA`s history
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Say you bargain over a drink. You agree on the conditions under which it will be sold and you agree to buy it.

Then yo refuse to pay. This is, if not illegal, the act of an azzhole."

If we agree that I am going to buy a coffee, and you change how that coffee is made 19 times, thus changing the price, you`re the azzhole if you still expect me to pay for it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]It`s surely having some pretty unpleasant repurcussions for many.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. My brother works for Border Patrol. He is not being paid for the work he is doing right now.

Unfortunately, we have to look at this objectively. Yes, it sucks that people are out of work. However, the economy didn`t even blink when 800,000 people didn`t show up to work. That probably means that the jobs weren`t all that important to begin with. I know that sounds mean, cold-hearted, and whatnot, but it`s reality.

If any other employer makes bad decisions, spends more than they earn, hires more people than they can pay, and indebts themselves, we all accept that they should go out of business. We all know that some people will lose their jobs because of it.

I can`t find a reason to look at this differently.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"@ Robb79: Pardon me for just a second. ~Squrlz slams his head into his desk in exasperation~"

@S4S -- maybe you should re-read his comment.. he didn`t make the claim that the ACA was a "bill".
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]That`s a pretty scary prospect to be facing, surely.[/quote]
Sure, but it`s inevitable one way or the other; the only difference being that either we, our children, or our grandchildren will have to fight this fight.

If we continue to raise the debt limit, interest rates will grow. Eventually, if this is allowed to continue indefinitely, we necessarily will surpass our ability to collect enough taxes to pay even the interest. Therefore, we must conclude that we will eventually be forced to not raise the debt limit.

Why should we, who directly benefit from the debt ceiling being raised, push that dilemma onto some future generation? If anything, taking the stand now and accepting that we cannot continue to spend more than we earn, is the moral decision.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"For those who want a balanced budget and those things that come with it, then no, this is in good spirit."

But this is what gets me: why were they unable to prevent it when the healthcare bill/act/law/thing went through the first time, and why do they have the power to do it now?

Did something change?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

I know it`s not a full shutdown, but I`ve been seeing some hints of some of the filter downs: companies supplying equipment to your military facing the need to furlough thousands of workers because they can`t deliver their completed equipment without the inspectors, who are furloughed, to inspect and pass them.

And so many workers having to go without pay. Yes, they`ll get it back. But can all of us safely say we`d be okay if our normal pay got delayed indefinitely?

It`s surely having some pretty unpleasant repurcussions for many.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@musuko

[quote]isn`t is still somewhat against the spirit?[/quote]
I suppose that`s really a matter of ones own perspective. For those who want the debt ceiling raised, spending expanded, and Obamacare implemented, yes - this is against the spirit. For those who want a balanced budget and those things that come with it, then no, this is in good spirit.

The problem is that everyone is acting like opposing a law is some criminal act; it`s not. If you don`t like a law, you should do everything you can to repeal it or stop it. If there is a large enough majority who support the law, then there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

For example, Democrats really don`t like the sequester - which is a law (like Obamacare); they have been actively trying to repeal it. If they could set the budget, they would do away with it. I don`t distinguish that as any different than this situation.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"It is absolutely within Obama`s power to refuse to negotiate. According to polls, there is still more disdain for House Republicans than for Obama. I think they are all at fault."

We`re on the same page there, then.

"Unless Obamacare is a bad law, whiand I believe it is. In that case, the system is working beautifully."

But is the potential damage of wrecking the US`s credit rating, disrupting so much of the working of your country, and *really* annoying a lot of tourists who came a long way to see closed attractions a price worth paying for this particular fight?

"It`s being blown WAY out of proportion."

Everything I`ve heard seems to be along the lines of "we don`t know what will happen" if the limit is passed.

That`s a pretty scary prospect to be facing, surely.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Squrlz4Sale

Thank you. :)

Weirdly, this particular debate`s managed to have some cheerful moments.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Why is there so much spite against Obama if it`s not?[/quote]
It is absolutely within Obama`s power to refuse to negotiate. According to polls, there is still more disdain for House Republicans than for Obama. I think they are all at fault.

[quote]doesn`t this whole situation suggest the system is flawed?[/quote]
Unless Obamacare is a bad law, whiand I believe it is. In that case, the system is working beautifully.

[quote]with the credit limit looming, it seems rather dangerous.[/quote]
It`s being blown WAY out of proportion. This country will not default, even if the debt limit isn`t raised. The interest payments are but a fraction of the tax collected every month.

The fact of the matter is that the government isn`t shutdown. Entitlement checks are flowing, the military is still attacking weaker nations, and the NSA is still reading our emails. This is a non-shutdown.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@masmas

That`s exactly how it appears to me, from over here.

How did this even happen, anyway? What I mean is: how did the Tea Party, which I`ve heard is a minority part of the Republicans, manage to muster the majority needed to stop the budget?

Did a large number change their mind between the passing of the healthcare law previously, and the budget now?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@masmas and Musuko42

And now that you`ve gotten both argument it`s in reality like this.....

Both their stupid asses.
0
Reply
Male 56
@Rob79

Say you bargain over a drink. You agree on the conditions under which it will be sold and you agree to buy it.

Then yo refuse to pay. This is, if not illegal, the act of an azzhole.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

Even if what they`re doing is legal...isn`t is still somewhat against the spirit? This part of government already approved this healthcare law...and now it comes to funding it, they`re stopping it?

Surely the will of that part of the government had already spoken in favour of it when they passed it?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

Surely, if what the Tea Party side is doing is legal, then Obama`s side refusing to negotiate is also legal?

Why is there so much spite against Obama if it`s not?

Also, whether or not it`s legal, doesn`t this whole situation suggest the system is flawed? The concept of checks and balances seems sound; but in practice right now, with the credit limit looming, it seems rather dangerous.

In the normal course of things, I would imagine this kind of deadlock has the luxury of time for being resolved. But in this particular instance, there`s a ticking clock.

Is there no contingency written into your system to cover such an eventuality?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Robb79: Pardon me for just a second. ~Squrlz slams his head into his desk in exasperation~

There. Much better now.

NO! The ACA is NOT a bill, for heaven`s sake. ~bangs head into desk again~ It was SIGNED INTO LAW by the president, after passing the HOUSE and then the SENATE, in March 2010. The law was subsequently challenged and adjudicated by the Supreme Court, who upheld the law in June 2012.

The clean CR (the resolution to fund the government WITHOUT an attempt to undo the ACA) IS a bill. It would pass the House if Speaker Boehner was willing to allow it to come to a vote. He has so far refused to do this because he KNOWS it will pass--which will anger the Tea Partiers, which, in turn, would almost certainly cost him the speakership.
0
Reply
Male 23
@MASMAS

Refusing to pay for it is a very legal action.
0
Reply
Male 23
The CR isn`t a bill? Pass the clean "BILL" they say? ACA is part of the CR, and if congress is trying to defund that part of the Spending BILL, do they not have the power to do so?
0
Reply
Male 56
@HumanAction

I understand very well that there is a system which creates hurdles for any law to pass and that the separation of power creates a very complicated situation where it needs approval of every entity in this power system. Our system is quite alike.

What I don`t understand: The Act apparently sailed around all these cliffs and was made law. Refusing to accept this law is not a legal action, now is it?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction:

[quote]...they created a powerful set of checks-and-balances that allow any of the House, Senate, or President to essentially veto any Bill through various means.[/quote]
Exactly. And this isn`t a bill. It`s a LAW, the result of years of checks-and-balances legislative process such as you describe.

It absolutely floors me that you apparently think our founding fathers intended for any minority faction to UNDO years of legislative process whenever they disliked the outcome.

If James Madison, who mused about purse strings in Federalist Paper #58, knew that his words were being used to threaten the United States default on its loans, he would be spinning in his grave.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

I am apparently living in la-la-land, per Squrlz`s explanation. Allow me to offer a different perspective.

The people who framed this government understood that inaction is always preferable to bad action. In other words, it is better for the government to sit idly than to create bad laws. In order to defend this stance, they created a powerful set of checks-and-balances that allow any of the House, Senate, or President to essentially veto any Bill through various means.

The House can stop legislation by refusing to fund it or refusing to take it to vote. The President can completely veto bills.

The fact of the matter is, that our system requires all parties to reach an agreement before any law can be put into play. As of now, that has not yet happened. The use of the words "blackmail," "extortion," and "hostage" is irresponsible because this is a LEGAL action by the House.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Musuko: I`ll say this: Your discussions on here with IAB`ers have been great. You have a better understanding of our legislative process than the vast majority of Americans, so kudos.

Don`t allow yourself to be sidelined. Anyone who claims that what`s occurring now is part of the normal checks-and-balances is living in la-la land.

Those of you abroad who are thinking this nation`s democracy is in danger of going off the rails because a minority is holding the country hostage to undo years of legislative process that ended in a way they didn`t like: It is. Your perceptions are accurate.

The Tea Partiers who are trying to pretend this is business as usual are also the lunatics saying, "What difference does it make if the United States defaults on its loans? It`s no big deal. Default-shmefault. Who cares?!"
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ McThstlpnts: Oh thank heavens there`s some sanity among the IAB crowd.

~Squrlz hugs McThstlpnts` ankle~
0
Reply
Female 1,539
@masmas and Musuko42 That is, in its most basic form, EXACTLY what is going on. Except President Obama didn`t create PPACA...he just signed the bill.
0
Reply
Male 819
This was a very noble and altruistic thing to do....what a grand coincidence that it was accidentally leaked to the press.

0
Reply
Male 56
Haha @Musuko42. At least I`m not alone!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@masmas

That`s how it appeared to me too. But it seems to be a whole lot more of a complicated mess of a system over there, regards how things are funded.

I retreated from the debate myself, when it became clear I wasn`t going to be able to understand it without a long crash course in America`s very alien political system.

All I`m able to do is stand alongside you, staring across the Atlantic, shrugging my shoulders and saying "dafuq?!"
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

"@Mad_Gremlyn: I`ve served in the Canadian Armed Forces! Briefly..."

He didn`t say you didn`t. You`re doing it again: you`re jumping to conclusions based on your own internal projections, rather than what you`re actually reading. He said:

"You need not stop payment on the fool known as 5brainCells because, as much as he wishes he is, he`s not an American citizen. The rest of these takers can be counted as leeches that contribute nothing and have never served in the armed forces"

He refers to you (insulting you differently), and then says the REST haven`t served in the armed forces. You are SPECIFICALLY excluded from that insult.

So why did you feel you need to defend your military service, when it wasn`t being insulted?

PLEASE pay attention and remember what we talked about before.
0
Reply
Male 56
As I am wether American nor living there I might get this one wrong but someone might be able to explain it to me:

- Obama created the Health Care Act
- The bill passed and is valid law now
- Now the reps blackmail Obama by saying: we shut down the country if you do not take back a bill that has already passed.
- Obama does not take it back

And now everything is Obamas fault?

Please explain.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
0
Reply
Male 39,914

Meanwhile, the congressional gym and sauna is still open. Only "non-essential" things are closed. Of course a good steam bath would be so critical after a hard day of screwing the country over.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@5Cats - It takes all of 2 seconds for me to load a breechloading double barrel shotgun. A 5, 6 or 9 round capacity pump action is a better alternative though if you ask me.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@WhoDat: Because criminals always wait politely for you to reload your double barreled shotgun...
NEVERMIND that his advice is ILLEGAL...

[quote]I heard that all the furloughed workers get back paid when government operates again.[/quote]
@paperduck: It`s true! That Bill was passed 402-0 by the House but it`s currently sitting in the Senate... no doubt it will instantly be passed there once this who thing blows over...

@Mad_Gremlyn: I`ve served in the Canadian Armed Forces! Briefly... :-)
HOW do you know those other guys have not? Idiot much?

@stk5m: No doubt she`s wealthy. ALL those parasites in DC are! And how many houses does Al Gore own? Hummmm?

@Zghost: Not sure which side you are criticizing... lolz!
0
Reply
Male 2,424
@stk5m -

Maybe a few shy of the white houses.
0
Reply
Male 152
Ah the Shutdown, the Ultimate Filibuster for Obamacare. Our government disgusts me more every day.
0
Reply
Male 322
So she won`t take a paycheck. How many bedrooms does the guest house on her vacation property have?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
S4S - yes there was a point. so far 2195 people have viewed this. I hope it compares to the amount of hits the other "scumbag" post made.

America is getting tired of liberal propaganda and name calling.
0
Reply
Male 512
An open letter to congress, the senate, the president or whoever the drat cares to notice: Please feel free to stop payment on the government subsidized lifestyles of the IAB users that go by the handles of OldIdiot, AuburnFlunky and Crakrjackass. You need not stop payment on the fool known as 5brainCells because, as much as he wishes he is, he`s not an American citizen. The rest of these takers can be counted as leeches that contribute nothing and have never served in the armed forces, or any other worthwhile pursuits, such as the peace core. Stop payment immediately so that they can actually sacrifice something. God knows, it ain`t in their DNA to be without the rest of us actually providing for them. Except for 5Braincells, the canucks do that -not that he will ever know.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
I heard that all the furloughed workers get back paid when government operates again. So there isn`t any savings just loss of productivity and interruption to activities... And political bs.
0
Reply
Male 955
meh, should be `donate` instead. she`ll just get it all when they open up again
0
Reply
Male 569
It`s an empty gesture. I doubt she is living paycheck to paycheck & she`ll get all her backpay when the gov`t starts back up.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"Translation? Always make sure criminals know your gun is empty..."

Guess you`ve never heard of reloading...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@YankMyDoodle: Why should a Republican resign? It`s the Democrat`s fault.

Now if Obama, Reid and Pelosi resigned? I`d toss in Boehner for y`all! :-)

Just think: President Joe Biden!!! What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

0
Reply
Male 771
she should resign instead, all of congress should. they are the reason the government shut down in the first place.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
lol @Gerry
0
Reply
Male 39,914

Grand meet stand
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I`m so thrilled at all of these political stunts.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Elkingo, you placed this photo in a thread the other day and I still don`t get the significance of it. At last count, 247 members of Congress--Democrat and Republican--are either donating their pay or having it withheld during the shutdown. Is there any special significance regarding Lynn Jenkins` action here that I`m missing?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Link: Lynn Jenkins (R) [Pic] [Rate Link] - ``I have asked to have my pay withheld until the government is operating again.``
0
Reply