Shutting Down the Govt. - Where Do You Stand?

[Sensia]

I find it interesting that the shut down is set for midnight tonight, and no real compromises yet. That means if it happens our troops will not get paid, and so many others get cut off. But guess what? Members of Congress will still get paid.

Hmmm....

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by phatdaty

And please, for the love of gawd, quit making it difficult to read these threads by cutting and pasting fifteen feet of some article you Googled. Just give us a link to go and read if you really think it supports your stated positions.

Amen!!

Originally Posted by phatdaty

Most of us can use a mouse.

First thing...every morning, when I role out of bed.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Correct English would make you sound smarter.

Do I abuse punctuation.....yes
Do I like run-on sentences....yes

"myself" ???????????----used for emphasis and effect

my·self

   /maɪˈsɛlf/ Show Spelled[mahy-self] Show IPA
–pronoun, plural our·selves  /ɑrˈsɛlvz, aʊər-, ˌaʊər-/ show+spelled">Show Spelled[ahr-selvz, ouuhr-, ou-er-] Show IPA. 1. (used as an intensive of me or I): I myself will challenge the winner.

2. (used reflexively in place of me as the object of a preposition or as the direct or indirect object of a verb): I gave myself a good rubdown. She asked me for a picture of myself.

3. Informal . (used in place of I or me, especially in compound subjects, objects, and complements): My wife and myself fully agree. She wanted John and myself to take charge. The originators of the plan were my partner and myself.

4. (used in place of I or me after as, than, or but ): He knows as much about the matter as myself.

5. my normal or customary self: After a few days of rest, I expect to be myself again.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by WTF

Rudyard is spot on on this one Marshall.

Thank God WTF doesn't agree with me, that would be humiliating.....

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Doove

.....but failed.

Like all your non-commie teachers and instructors.....

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You first have to realize what you're dealing with. It's a game of political chicken and a battle for the hearts and minds (to the extent that they have minds) of independent voters. And of course, this is just the dress rehearsal for the real fight, the 2012 budget. For the Democrats, a shut down is better than a bad deal because I think that the majority if independent voters will blame the TeaNuts in particular, and the Republicans in general.

This is definitely political gamesmanship, but I'm not sure who will get the blame [or credit] for shutting down the government....Rupublicans acted smarter than they usually do, but no guarantee of success.....

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You first have to realize what you're dealing with. It's a game of political chicken and a battle for the hearts and minds (to the extent that they have minds) of independent voters. And of course, this is just the dress rehearsal for the real fight, the 2012 budget. For the Democrats, a shut down is better than a bad deal because I think that the majority if independent voters will blame the TeaNuts in particular, and the Republicans in general.

The Democrats should also make public everyone's final offers. I understand from two phone calls today, including one with a Congressman, is that the sticking point isn't dollars and cents, but the Republican insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood and eliminating the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses. When independent voters learn that, even more blame will fall upon the Republicans. They will eventually have to crawl down and eat crow.

Now whether this spineless SOB that we have as a President has enough balls to stand up to the Republicans and tell them to go pound sand like Clinton did is another issue.

Rachel Maddow had a man on the street segment last night where nobody knew who John Boehner was. Her point was that BHO would be the face of the shut down. As long as Obama is out there saying that he won't sign bills, the Republicans are winning. His rejecting of the temporary measure so that "military families get paid" is a tremendous blunder.

There is no TEA party to blame. Who is the face of the TEA party that is holding this up? Sarah Palin?

You are correct in that this is a political game of chicken for the 2012 budget. I think you overestimate the Planned Parenthood and the EPA/CO2 aspect. Most Americans don't know that it took a court decision to get the EPA to define CO2 as a pollutant but don't believe in global warming anymore. Is this going to raise the price of gas? The Planned Parenthood is somewhat different but just counter the Dems are shutting down the govt because PP will not get govt money. PP itself is not being shut down.

Boehner should just keep hammering the cuts home, saying that we are in bad financial shape and its less than 2% of a 3 trillion dollar budget. Use the term "Fiscal Sanity" a lot. Keep pointing out the Dems didn't pass a budget when they had total control. Don't get distracted by Dem talking points.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Rachel Maddow had a man on the street segment last night where nobody knew who John Boehner was. Her point was that BHO would be the face of the shut down. As long as Obama is out there saying that he won't sign bills, the Republicans are winning. His rejecting of the temporary measure so that "military families get paid" is a tremendous blunder.

There is no TEA party to blame. Who is the face of the TEA party that is holding this up? Sarah Palin?

You are correct in that this is a political game of chicken for the 2012 budget. I think you overestimate the Planned Parenthood and the EPA/CO2 aspect. Most Americans don't know that it took a court decision to get the EPA to define CO2 as a pollutant but don't believe in global warming anymore. Is this going to raise the price of gas? The Planned Parenthood is somewhat different but just counter the Dems are shutting down the govt because PP will not get govt money. PP itself is not being shut down.

Boehner should just keep hammering the cuts home, saying that we are in bad financial shape and its less than 2% of a 3 trillion dollar budget. Use the term "Fiscal Sanity" a lot. Keep pointing out the Dems didn't pass a budget when they had total control. Don't get distracted by Dem talking points.

+1

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Now whether this spineless SOB that we have as a President...

The reason he's a spineless SOB is that he seems intent on completely ignoring the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission, and any other reasoned set of proposals, in favor of continuing on as though we'll never be at risk of a fiscal crisis. He doesn't give a rat's ass about anything other than his 2012 re-election prospects.

We're kicking the can down the road, and Obama is can-kicker-in-chief. But is anyone surprised? How many times did the guy vote "present" when he was in the Illinois State Senate?

The President of the United States is supposed to lead, not just continue voting "present."

Yet the only areas in which he's been "leading" involve piling on a lot more debt. He seems to want to lead us a long way toward establishing a European-style social democracy without imposing the sort of tax system necessary to pay for it. Unless we alter our course in a big way, politicians are going to have to do just that. When they do, the typical Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America ain't gonna like it very much.

[charlestudor2005]

They can't fix the deficit without attacking/eliminating some "untouchables:"

• Social Security
• Medicare/Medicaid
• DOD Budget
• Veterans Affairs Budget
• Homeland Security Budget

Then we'll be talking real money. The budgets being targeted by the Pubs is based solely on a political agenda, and even if the "people" agree with that agenda, they'll see that the agenda is the reason, not any neutral effort to reduce spending.

John Boehner has gotten used to using the phrase, "the American people" want this, or "the American people have spoken and want" that. Well, I am a US citizen, and John Boehner doesn't speak for me. Nor does Harry Reid or BO.

In the end, this is not an easy issue. But to try and accomplish it with the "committee" that built the camel is ridiculous. It's going to be hard to blame BO when all he has to say is, "Congress never sent me a budget to sign."

IMHO, if BO wants to avoid any blame, he will stay OUT of the legislative process, and leave any budget up to the folks who are supposed to pass it: Congress.

Calling Congressional leaders to the White House to "discuss" the matter just results in grandstanding and more stonewalling.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

They can't fix the deficit without attacking/eliminating some "untouchables:"

• Social Security
• Medicare/Medicaid
• DOD Budget
• Veterans Affairs Budget
• Homeland Security Budget

Then we'll be talking real money. The budgets being targeted by the Pubs is based solely on a political agenda, and even if the "people" agree with that agenda, they'll see that the agenda is the reason, not any neutral effort to reduce spending.

You're essentially right about that, but the problem is that no one has the balls to tell the public the cold, hard truth. For his part, Obama campaigned on a promise that taxes would not be raised on anyone whose income is less than $200K. In fact, he promised tax cuts for the lower income groups. It was a promise that could not possibly be sustained, and everyone who has any understanding of the issue knew it at the time.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

In the end, this is not an easy issue. But to try and accomplish it with the "committee" that built the camel is ridiculous. It's going to be hard to blame BO when all he has to say is, "Congress never sent me a budget to sign."

One might think that, but just wait until the crisis assumes full force and see who gets blamed. When a bust occurs on a president's watch, it rarely works for him to claim that it's everybody else's fault.

That may especially be the case this time, since Obama began pushing grossly reckless fiscal policies even before he was inaugurated.

[Can I Play Too???]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

What strikes me most is the fatuousness of the congressional debate, in view of the fact that these guys are quibbling over a few billion in the presence of a $1.6 trillion deficit. Deep down inside, everybody knows how much trouble we're in, and that no one has the political courage to do what we are sooner or later going to be forced to do.

I won't get into who's been schooling whom on tax issues, but am amazed by the lack of understanding demonstrated by a few posters in this forum. Apparently, some people still labor under the delusion that raising taxes on the top 1% would go a long way toward reducing our budget deficit, even though you'd have a hard time even coming close to eliminating a nickel of every deficit dollar by doing so.

We're going to face serious economic problems over the next few years. That's already baked into the cake. The baking process started about 8 years ago and continues unabated. It accelerated in 2009-10. We've just been digging a bigger and bigger hole.

A difficult period of reckoning is on the horizon.

U Pwned this thread. Ftw!

So you all propose austerity measures like those in Europe but with more aggressive cuts? More protesting ahead, then.

My point was that the Fed Reserve is not a part of the govt. Where do you all think our estimated $24 trillion national debt comes from?

Also, it's happened before...
"During the 5 day U.S. government shutdown back in 1995, approximately 800,000 "non-essential" government employees were told not to come in to work.* But eventually they all got paid retroactively.* So not much harm was really done."

[Whirlaway]

It doesn't have to happen; but Obama (and the Dems) are intent on shutting it down.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It doesn't have to happen; but Obama (and the Dems) are intent on shutting it down.

Makes sense, since they figure they're the ones who'll benefit politically. I think that's probably the case, but it's not nearly as clear as it was back in 1995 when Bill Clinton politically outmaneuvered Gingrich & Co.

Clinton handled the situation a lot better than Obama, but of course he handled pretty much everything better (with the obvious exception of White House BJ discretion).

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Makes sense, since they figure they're the ones who'll benefit politically. I think that's probably the case, but it's not nearly as clear as it was back in 1995 when Bill Clinton politically outmaneuvered Gingrich & Co.

).

It was only clear after the fact.....