Government Shutdown, Here We Come

[ClydeR]

There is general agreement that the two sides must work out a deal by Tuesday night if it is to work its way through both chambers and reach President Obama’s desk before the government runs out of money Friday.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama_invites_top_lawmakers_to_hash_out_budget_at_ white_house_as_deadline_looms/2011/04/04/AF2t8QdC_story.html)


According to a House rule Boehner put in place this year, no bill can come to a vote until members have had three days to read it — leaving almost no time for the Senate to act if the House could not approve its version until late Friday or over the weekend.

House Republicans huddled late Monday and, according to a GOP aide, gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them that he was advising the House Administration Committee to begin preparing for a possible shutdown. That process includes alerting lawmakers and senior staff about which employees would not report to work if no agreement is reached.

What am I supposed to stockpile for a government shutdown? Guns, ammunition, water, canned food, batteries, potassium iodide, Cipro?

[Tgo01]

What am I supposed to stockpile for a government shutdown? Guns, ammunition, water, canned food, batteries, potassium iodide, Cipro?

Virgins.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Frankly I hope it does shut down.

[Tgo01]

Frankly I hope it does shut down.

Why for?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Honestly, I don't. But I'm tired of the posturing. What would really happen were it to shutdown? It's not like we close all the doors - there's staff that stays on.

I wonder if they'll reduce staff in the IRS, considering it's a revenue generator. Or extend the deadline...

Maybe if they do a massive reduction in workforce, we'll actually come in at budget... haha.

[~Rocktar~]

Big deal, happened a couple times under Reagen and while it is an inconvenience, it really doesn't doom the world. It will piss off some government workers and politicians.

[Buckwheet]

I think it would be pretty awesome if they hired "scabs" to replace the government workers during the shutdown.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think it would be pretty awesome if they hired "scabs" to replace the government workers during the shutdown.

I'd agree it would be awesome were the politicians replaced. Not so much the workers without notice for something they cannot control :x

[waywardgs]

Will this mean we can drink and drive again? Because that shit is FUN.

[Buckwheet]

I'd agree it would be awesome were the politicians replaced. Not so much the workers without notice for something they cannot control :x

Sure. I think if all politicians lost all their staff and those staff members were either not replaced or replaced with the lowest bidder that would be funny as hell to watch.

[ViridianAsp]

Will this mean we can drink and drive again? Because that shit is FUN.

If that happens, I hope it means we can shoot drunk drivers on site after fucking up and killing people in car accidents. Why should they get to walk away? :heart: Come to think of it, let the government shut down, I'd reduce the Omaha populace by 50%.

[waywardgs]

If that happens, I hope it means we can shoot drunk drivers on site after fucking up and killing people in car accidents. Why should they get to walk away? :heart: Come to think of it, let the government shut down, I'd reduce the Omaha populace by 50%.

Free-for-all!

[ClydeR]

I think it would be pretty awesome if they hired "scabs" to replace the government workers during the shutdown.

Scabs don't work for free, and there won't be any money to pay them.

[ClydeR]

I'd agree it would be awesome were the politicians replaced.

Congressional salaries are not appropriated because the Constitution specifically authorizes and requires pay for members of Congress. Only appropriated expenditures will be cut off if there is no spending authority. There is a bill in the Senate to cut off Congressional pay during a government shutdown, and there is a different bill in the House to cut off Congressional pay if the shutdown lasts more than a certain time period.

[Fallen]

It is a big todo here on post. Pretty sure I am essential personel. I will still be paid, but I likely wont be allowed to show up for work, heh.

[WRoss]

We don't have to pay prisoners right? Or at least not very much? Maybe they could become gov't staff. I mean 1,404,503 people that would work for free could fix out budget pretty quick. I don't know why no civilization had ever thought of this free labor idea before.

[waywardgs]

We don't have to pay prisoners right? Or at least not very much? Maybe they could become gov't staff. I mean 1,404,503 people that would work for free could fix out budget pretty quick. I don't know why no civilization had ever thought of this free labor idea before.

We need them to make our license plates.

[WRoss]

We need them to make our license plates.

I bet they could run the DMV more efficiently.

[waywardgs]

I bet they could run the DMV more efficiently.

Truth. If the DMV were a chopshop, it would be 10x as efficient.

[WRoss]

Truth. If the DMV were a chopshop, it would be 10x as efficient.

What about all the people paid to print all that paper for the govt? Prisoners don't need fingers. Shit, if they had less, they couldn't steal or kill people any more. Maybe we could make paper out of prisoners.

[AnticorRifling]

We don't have to pay prisoners right? Or at least not very much? Maybe they could become gov't staff. I mean 1,404,503 people that would work for free could fix out budget pretty quick. I don't know why no civilization had ever thought of this free labor idea before.

We did, there was a big war about it, some speeches, tall guy in a hat got shot. I'm surprised you didn't hear about it, it was in all the papers.

[waywardgs]

We did, there was a big war about it, some speeches, tall guy in a hat got shot. I'm surprised you didn't hear about it, it was in all the papers.

Papers made from prisoners?

[WRoss]

We did, there was a big war about it, some speeches, tall guy in a hat got shot. I'm surprised you didn't hear about it, it was in all the papers.

Saddam, Bin Laden, and Ghadafi (maybe Kadafi or Gaddafi of Ghadaffi or Gadafi) are all kinda tall, but I didn't know we had shot any of them.

http://www.historyguy.com/biofiles/saddam_hussein.jpg

HAT

http://www.september11news.com/OsamsBinLaden2Lrg.jpg

HAT

http://www.gambling911.com/files/publisher/Ghadafi-032811L.jpg?1301326980

HAT


This is why I have hat hate.

[Androidpk]

I'm going to assume people using GI benefits won't housing stipends and tuition won't be paid..

[AnticorRifling]

We should still get our benefits paid out pk.

[waywardgs]

I'm going to assume people using GI benefits won't housing stipends and tuition won't be paid..

I'm going to assume you just accidentally.

[g++]

Pretty much anyone distributing money will be considered essential and work through a shut down.

[ClydeR]

Democrats don't seem to realize that elections have consequences. Now that Republicans control the government, Democrats can no longer force their liberal agenda on America. The real debate in this budget fight isn't about budget numbers. Listen to how Obama described it yesterday.


"What they are now saying is, well, we're not sure that every single one of the cuts that you've made are ones that we agree to," Obama said. " We'd rather have these cuts rather than that cut. That's not the basis for shutting down the government."

More... (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-gop-try-to-avoid-shutdown-start-to-point-fingers/1)

Umm, no. If we control the government, then we get to decide both how much to spend and where to spend it. We don't want money spent on birth control, abortion, job-killing environmental regulations or wasteful education programs. Republicans want to slice spending and cut the top tax rate down from 35% to 25% (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/ryan-tax-rate-goal-would-require-u-s-lawmakers-to-consider-favored-breaks.html), which is still a lot of tax to pay.

[ClydeR]

If the government shuts down, essential military people, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, will still continue to work, but they won't get paid after the April 8 paycheck.


Officials insist the operations -- including the two wars, Libya and Japan -- would be not affected but it would certainly impact military families.

If the federal government shuts down, "you could have forces deployed in the field, with their families back home, and no one's getting paid. And that could be an issue," the defense official said.

If a shutdown were to last beyond the next pay period of April 15, the official says U.S. troops would not get paid on time.

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/04/government.shutdown.military/index.html)




A group of House Republicans took the first step Friday toward trying to guarantee the military would get paid if there is a government shutdown.

There are heavy political undertones to the bill, and no guarantee it will pass, but it marks acknowledgement by lawmakers that the Defense Department’s current plan calls for service members to work without pay if Congress fails to keep the government running.

More... (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/04/military-bill-would-guarantee-military-pay-in-a-shutdown-040111w/)


House Republican leaders have not scheduled a vote on the Gohmert bill. If it passes the House, it would also have to pass the Senate and be signed into law to take effect.

[AnticorRifling]

If the government shuts down, essential military people, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, will still continue to work, but they won't get paid after the April 8 paycheck.

What US military were you in that paychecks were handed out on the 8th?

[waywardgs]

What US military were you in that paychecks were handed out on the 8th?

Laotian.

[Kyra231]

What US military were you in that paychecks were handed out on the 8th?

:rofl: pwnt

[ClydeR]

What US military were you in that paychecks were handed out on the 8th?

The next payment will be made on the 15th, but if the government is still shut down, it will only include the time period ending on the 8th. Congress will have to appropriate more money to pay for any services performed after the 8th. When the shutdown is over, Congress will, I hope, remember to appropriate money for backpay.

[AnticorRifling]

Which is all well and good but what does that have to do with you saying there would be an April 8th paycheck?

[Carl Spackler]

Which is all well and good but what does that have to do with you saying there would be an April 8th paycheck?

I think what he meant to say was they will be paid for services rendered up to and including the 8th and then won't be paid but but will continue to earn throughout the shutdown. They are then expected to be paid after the shutdown is over.

[AnticorRifling]

As someone who lives to make sure exactly what is said is what is meant I find it in bad form for ClydeR to have meant something not said, do not defend him Carl!

[Ardwen]

Clearly they should just put the prisoners in all the damn call centers, its not like the english couldbe any worse, and theres is no way they could possibly suck more then the idiots doing those jobs, hell farm them out and replace all the indian call centers.

[Ardwen]

Clyde is just bad form, why just really doesnt matter.

[Carl Spackler]

As someone who lives to make sure exactly what is said is what is meant I find it in bad form for ClydeR to have meant something not said, do not defend him Carl!

Sorry! Wasn't defending, just trying to clarify.

[Back]

If it does it will only serve to make republicans look bad as it has in the past.

My bet is that they are just playing chicken and the democrats aren’t even blinking.

[Tgo01]

If it does it will only serve to make republicans look bad as it has in the past.

Why won't Democrats look bad?

[Gan]

Why won't Democrats look bad?

Because in Back's eyes, the Democrats never look bad. Especially with Obama leading the charge.

[Back]

Why won't Democrats look bad?

Just read about it. I don’t care what source you choose. Ultimately it boils down to the reality of the situation being that the republicans, which hold a majority mind you, are getting some cuts but will not compromise unless they get all of their cuts. It even gets stupider when you whittle it down to what cuts are being made and by whom. The dems have offered up at least half of what is asked.


Ideologically Divided and Unwilling to Compromise (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/03/30/Majority-of-Experts-Predict-Government-Shutdown.aspx)
Most of those forecasting a shutdown blame it on sharp ideological divisions and the unwillingness of freshmen conservative House members and Tea Party adherents to compromise on spending cuts. Even if House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wanted to compromise with the democrats, the Tea Party won’t let them, the argument goes. Budget negotiations are gridlocked, with Republicans demanding as much as $61 billion in domestic program cuts for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30th, along with a raft of policy changes. The White House has offered a little more than $30 billion in spending cuts, which Republicans say is unacceptable.

“Speaker Boehner has a real problem on his hands as he tries to thread the needle between what the right wing of his caucus wants versus what the far right wants,” Jim Manley, a 20-year veteran of Capitol Hill, explained. “The Tea Party types will never let him cut a deal.”

[Tgo01]

Just read about it. I don’t care what source you choose. Ultimately it boils down to the reality of the situation being that the republicans, which hold a majority mind you, are getting some cuts but will not compromise unless they get all of their cuts. It even gets stupider when you whittle it down to what cuts are being made and by whom. The dems have offered up at least half of what is asked.

So the Democrats do have an option to prevent the government from shutting down?

[Back]

So the Democrats do have an option to prevent the government from shutting down?

They have already used it. The ball is in the republican’s court now. If the democrats said no to any cuts, being the opposite of demanding all the cuts, then the democrats would be the ones shutting things down unreasonably.

A government shutdown is going to affect a lot of tax paying folk who have to make ends meet.

[Gan]

AND BABIES WILL DIE!

[Tgo01]

They have already used it. The ball is in the republican’s court now. If the democrats said no to any cuts, being the opposite of demanding all the cuts, then the democrats would be the ones shutting things down unreasonably.

A government shutdown is going to affect a lot of tax paying folk who have to make ends meet.

Back I really hate to say it but I do agree with you that I think the Republicans are being a bit unreasonable this time around. They got something like 78 billion dollars in cuts this year but are now holding out for 100 billion dollars in cuts. 78 billion this year sounds great, take up the fight to cut another 50 billion or so next year.

But to claim that the Democrats hands are tied is a bit silly as well. If it's so important for them that the government not shut down why can't they concede another 22 billion dollars in cuts? End our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq a month early and call it even.

[Back]

Back I really hate to say it but I do agree with you that I think the Republicans are being a bit unreasonable this time around. They got something like 78 billion dollars in cuts this year but are now holding out for 100 billion dollars in cuts. 78 billion this year sounds great, take up the fight to cut another 50 billion or so next year.

But to claim that the Democrats hands are tied is a bit silly as well. If it's so important for them that the government not shut down why can't they concede another 22 billion dollars in cuts? End our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq a month early and call it even.

I am not claiming the democrats hands are tied. I am saying the democrats have shown that they are willing to work out bipartisan compromise. If anything democrats are more likely to cave on a shutdown because it affects so many taxpayers out there. But they can and will stick to their own guns and not back down on what they think is right also.

[Carl Spackler]

If it does it will only serve to make republicans look bad as it has in the past.

My bet is that they are just playing chicken and the democrats aren’t even blinking.

Why didn't Dem's pass one last year/congress when they had opportunity to? Oh that's right, why would they want to show everyone how much they were actually spending with elections coming up.

[Back]

Why didn't Dem's pass one last year/congress when they had opportunity to? Oh that's right, why would they want to show everyone how much they were actually spending with elections coming up.

Because, you know, democrats like to spend money on blow and hookers.

[Carl Spackler]

Because, you know, democrats like to spend money on blow and hookers.

Good answer.

[Valthissa]

Ultimately it boils down to the reality of the situation being that the republicans, which hold a majority mind you, are getting some cuts but will not compromise unless they get all of their cuts.


Isn't the current lineup:

Senate - held by Democrats 51-47 (2 independent)
House - held by Republicans 241-192 (2 vacant)
Executive - held by Democrats

That doesn't look like a Republican majority to me. Spending bills do originate in the House, and the Republicans have big issues (never underestimate the stupidity of our political class) in forming a consensus.

At least part of the problem is the failure of the 111th to pass a budget. That was when the Democrats had majorities in both branches of government.

C/Valth

[Parkbandit]

Isn't the current lineup:

Senate - held by Democrats 51-47 (2 independent)
House - held by Republicans 241-192 (2 vacant)
Executive - held by Democrats

That doesn't look like a Republican majority to me. Spending bills do originate in the House, and the Republicans have big issues (never underestimate the stupidity of our political class) in forming a consensus.

At least part of the problem is the failure of the 111th to pass a budget. That was when the Democrats had majorities in both branches of government.

C/Valth

Had the Democrats passed a budget in 2009 when they were supposed to, the 2010 election cycle would have been a bigger bloodbath and they knew that. Pretty smart move by the Democrats actually..

[Gan]

Had the Democrats passed a budget in 2009 when they were supposed to, the 2010 election cycle would have been a bigger bloodbath and they knew that. Pretty smart move by the Democrats actually..

It's like intentionally paying a bill late. You (they) still have to pay it though...

[Parkbandit]

It's like intentionally paying a bill late. You (they) still have to pay it though...

But the thing is... they won't have to pay for their inaction. They have effectively placed the blame on the shoulders of the Republican Party.. more accurately, the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.

[Ayamei]

I think it would be pretty awesome if they hired "scabs" to replace the government workers during the shutdown.

WTF does this mean, this isn't a labor issue, it's an inability for our leaders to balance the budget. Plus, you don't hire scabs, they are people who don't strike or perform job actions during a labor disagreement.

Wait, why am I getting involved in something political on PC! AHH!!!! ::flees::

[Gan]

So what's the over/under on how long this will last?

[ClydeR]

Congressional negotiators working through the night failed to reach an agreement to fund the federal government for the remainder of the year as their talks foundered over two Republican policy provisions on abortion and the environment, increasing the likelihood of a government shutdown beginning this weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday morning.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/reid-says-budget-talks-stymied-by-gop-policy-provisions/2011/04/07/AFw3fruC_story.html)


Reid said his staff worked through the night with negotiators for Boehner and the administration following a nearly two-hour meeting at the White House Wednesday night. He said the talks are at an impasse over restrictions on abortion funding and changes to environmental regulations, which House Republicans want to be part of any budget deal.

“It’s not realistic to shut down the government on a debate dealing with abortion,” Reid said. “It’s not fair to the American people. We haven’t solved the issue in 40 years. We’re not going to solve it in the next 38 hours. We should not be distracted by ideology. This is a bill that funds the government.”

Reid added: “If this government shuts down, and it looks like it’s heading in that direction, it’s going to be based on my friends in the House of Representatives focusing on ideological matters that have nothing to do with funding this government. That’s a sad day, I think.”

No, it's not sad. You know why? It's because you cannot separate the fiscal from the cultural. "Budget-Fundamentalism" is the new buzzword.

[Parkbandit]

So what's the over/under on how long this will last?

I'm opening with 4 days, not including the weekend.

[Gan]

I'll take 6.

[Back]

Obama Issues Veto Threat As Government Shutdown Looms (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/obama-veto-threat-government-shutdown_n_846187.html)


WASHINGTON -- President Obama promised on Thursday to veto a House Republican bill that would keep the government open for one extra week and cut $12 billion in spending, while also funding the military through the remainder of the fiscal year.

Obama had dismissed the gesture in private meetings and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the measure a "fantasy" and a "non-starter," but Thursday's veto threat was the president's clearest signal that the House Republican stopgap is doomed.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticized Obama's veto threat, saying in a statement, "I urge the President revisit his decision and work with us."

A government shutdown is looking increasingly likely, Reid warned Thursday morning, charging that Republicans are holding up a deal over ideological issues.

He also mocked a would-be stopgap measure moving through the House as a "fantasy" and a "non-starter."

"The numbers are basically there," Reid (D-Nev.) said in a Senate floor statement. "But I am not nearly as optimistic -- and that's an understatement -- as I was 11 hours ago."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday that negotiators are not as close to reaching a budget deal as he thought last night, when he attended a meeting at the White House.

Hmm...

[WRoss]

Obama Issues Veto Threat As Government Shutdown Looms (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/obama-veto-threat-government-shutdown_n_846187.html)



Hmm...

Clearly this is not Obama's fault, right?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The government will shut down, but the senate and the house will continue drawing paychecks as essential personnel. All the posturing and chest beating going on is uber retarded, on both sides. Not having a budget 4 months into the fiscal year is retarded.

7 billion dollars is the interest from 10 days of our current debt... you'd think it could be figured out.

[Back]

Clearly this is not Obama's fault, right?

This is Obama saying quit fucking around and accept the compromises already made.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This is Obama saying quit fucking around and accept the compromises already made.

Unfortunately for Obama, he has no say in it anymore. Sure he can prolong it, but he can't solve it. He shouldn't have pussed out last year when he had the votes, no new war and more approval.

[Gan]

This is Obama saying quit fucking around and accept the compromises already made.
So basically he's saying its my way or the highway.

Check.

[Fallen]

i'm being told that there were a bunch of riders on that bill. It wasn't just extending it out a week. It was a bunch of things Republicans wanted attached to a bill to continue funding.

Is that accurate?

[Gan]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Barack Obama hate policy riders. They have no place in spending bills, the top Democrats have said during the latest budget debate.

Unless, of course, they’re Democratic policy riders.

“We’re happy to debate these, but on a legislative vehicle, not a spending vehicle,” Reid said Thursday.

Republicans say that’s a different tune than he was singing in 2009, when he, President Barack Obama and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi loaded such riders onto a government-funding bill similar to the one now being negotiated. A senior Democratic aide said the two aren’t comparable.

Among the legislative items Democrats attached to that spending measure were:
* A long-desired abortion-rights provision making birth-control pills and devices cheaper for Planned Parenthood and other family-planning clinics who provide them to students on college campuses and poor women. Originally, an effort had been made to include that rider on an emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was removed amid political pressure.

* The repeal of a school-voucher program in the District of Columbia that is close to the heart of the current speaker, John Boehner.

* A relaxation of restrictions on travel to Cuba.

* Reid’s pet project: Delaying the development of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage site through spending cuts and legislative language; and

* A provision designed to facilitate the implementation of taxpayer-funded health benefits for the same-sex partners of federal employees.

“Policy restrictions are a routine part of spending bills. Senate Democratic Leaders – and President Obama – have supported hundreds, if not thousands of them, including on CRs,” Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said in reference to a “continuing resolution” — the vehicle political leaders are using as they try to negotiate a deal to keep the government running through the end of September.

But Democrats insist that not all riders are created equal.

“There is a difference between including riders on a bill when they are supported by a majority of the Senate and just need a vehicle and including riders on a bill because a minority is trying to ram through something that would not have support on its own,” the senior Democratic aide countered. “Here, keeping the government funded should be enough.”

While Republicans are a minority in the Senate, they hold power in the House. It’s not clear which riders would have majority support in the Senate because there has been no opportunity for the upper chamber to vote on them.

— David Nather contributed to this report

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52751.html

[ClydeR]

i'm being told that there were a bunch of riders on that bill. It wasn't just extending it out a week. It was a bunch of things Republicans wanted attached to a bill to continue funding.

Is that accurate?

Yes, the one week bill just passed by the House, HR 1363, contains policy riders. What's the point of being in the majority if you can't change how money is spent? Republicans should let government grind to a complete halt until Democrats agree to all of the policy riders in the budget bill. No funding for birth control, no funding for abortion, no funding for Obamacare, no funding for environmental enforcement of air laws.

Guess what? Democrat constituents need government more than Republican constituents. We can totally wait them out.


But the bill, HR 1363, already has been rejected by Senate leaders because poison-pill riders have been attached to the measure that are unacceptable to many Democrats — such as preventing the District of Columbia from spending its own money on abortions — and because Democrats don’t want to separate the Defense Department from the rest of the federal budget out of concern such a move might make it even harder to get an complete federal funding agreement.

House passage of HR 1363, which seems a sure thing for a vote that could come Thursday, does help Republican leaders in the House point blame at Senate Democrats for a government shutdown, if that happens at midnight Friday when temporary funding expires.

There could be an 11th-hour — or more likely 13th-hour — effort to ensure military members will be paid and paid on time in a shutdown. Congressional leaders have been reluctant to schedule votes on House and Senate bills exempting the military from pay delays because passing the bills would be an admission of failure on avoiding a shutdown.

More... (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/04/military-pay-shutdown-update-040711w/)

[Cephalopod]

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/brain-shutting-down-explain-government-somewhat-topical-ecards-someecards.png

[Firestorm Killa]

Well I for one hope it does shut down. We will see who is non essential and we can cut the budget by firing them. On top of that no one would lend to the government anymore which means our deficit won't shoot up so much through bailouts etc.
Besides this is Obama's and the rest of the democrap's fault for not passing a budget last year when they were in charge. They will just reap what they sow.

[ClydeR]

[COLOR=black]The government will shut down, but the senate and the house will continue drawing paychecks as essential personnel.

I'll explain the Congressional salary issue to everybody. Pay close attention.

The Senate passed by unanimous consent a bill that would stop salary payments to members of Congress during a shutdown. The House has not voted on the Senate bill.

The House passed a bill that says Congress will not get paid if Congress shuts down for more than 24 hours. The same bill says that if the Senate does not pass H.R.1, the house budget bill, then the House budget will be "deemed" to have been passed by the Senate. The Senate refuses to vote on the House bill.

As you can see, both houses have passed bills denying members of Congress pay during a shutdown. You can also see that only the House bill is both serious and clever. If neither house votes on the bill from the other house, then Congress will get paid during a shutdown.

Apparently there is also some issue with the 27th amendment to the Constitution.

[waywardgs]

On top of that no one would lend to the government anymore

Yeah, that's a great thing for our country.

[Firestorm Killa]

Yeah, that's a great thing for our country.

Sure would be. The government should only use what they collect in taxes. When we borrow from other nations that puts us into a predicament in regards to national security.

[Fallen]

This is starting to cause drastic problems for us at work. We're basically unable to do new research until this problem is resolved. Talk about wasted money, every day we aren't working the government is actually losing money, heh.

[waywardgs]

Sure would be. The government should only use what they collect in taxes. When we borrow from other nations that puts us into a predicament in regards to national security.

So you'd like to ruin the nation's credit rating by defaulting on loans?

[Warriorbird]

So you'd like to ruin the nation's credit rating by defaulting on loans?

If he does it why can't America?

[Stanley Burrell]

Well I for one hope it does shut down. We will see who is non essential and we can cut the budget by firing them. On top of that no one would lend to the government anymore which means our deficit won't shoot up so much through bailouts etc.
Besides this is Obama's and the rest of the democrap's fault for not passing a budget last year when they were in charge. They will just reap what they sow.

Here's the difference between what (most) commoners believe and what has already happened (unless some black swan event is triggered, basically.)

This is going to play out exactly as predicted and planned by those in the actual know-how.

The day I assume politicians, on all spectra, aren't piggish; excluding the philisophically utilitarian perspective, is when I believe I grew up in what America says what is.

[Firestorm Killa]

So you'd like to ruin the nation's credit rating by defaulting on loans?

We wouldn't default even if the government shuts down. Sorry but thats a myth. The government should pay back the loans of course, however they should stop borrowing from other nations because that gives the lending nation an advantage over our country. The founding fathers warned against borrowing from other nations.

[waywardgs]

We wouldn't default even if the government shuts down. Sorry but thats a myth. The government should pay back the loans of course, however they should stop borrowing from other nations because that gives the lending nation an advantage over our country. The founding fathers warned against borrowing from other nations.

Some other president also warned against the military industrial complex. We didn't listen to him either.

[Firestorm Killa]

If he does it why can't America?

I pay my bills. Sorry to disappoint you. What's wrong Warriorbird your job in jeopardy from a shutdown? Better go cry to your union.

[Firestorm Killa]

Some other president also warned against the military industrial complex. We didn't listen to him either.

And this is why the voting age should be raised, after all since dems consider 26 and under as kids in the health care bill, then kids shouldn't vote. It may surprise you but I am against the military industrial complex as well.

[waywardgs]

And this is why the voting age should be raised, after all since dems consider 26 and under as kids in the health care bill, then kids shouldn't vote. It may surprise you but I am against the military industrial complex as well.

Right, we'll make them die in the mud in some far-off country, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Good plan.

[BriarFox]

Right, we'll make them die in the mud in some far-off country, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Good plan.

Or drink, smoke, or have sex.

[Firestorm Killa]

Right, we'll make them die in the mud in some far-off country, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Good plan.

Raise the age of enlistment as well. It's not me that says they are kids. It is Obama and the Dems that did that when they passed the health care law and defined kids as 26 and under in it.

[crb]

We could go to the Starship Troopers (book, not movie, kthx) school of democracy and ONLY allow veterans to vote.

[waywardgs]

Raise the age of enlistment as well. It's not me that says they are kids. It is Obama and the Dems that did that when they passed the health care law and defined kids as 26 and under in it.

lolwut? The age of enlistment has been 18 for a very very long time.

[Firestorm Killa]

lolwut? The age of enlistment has been 18 for a very very long time.

maybe you should re-read my post?

[Firestorm Killa]

We could go to the Starship Troopers (book, not movie, kthx) school of democracy and ONLY allow veterans to vote.

That would make sense actually.

[Gan]

We wouldn't default even if the government shuts down. Sorry but thats a myth. The government should pay back the loans of course, however they should stop borrowing from other nations because that gives the lending nation an advantage over our country. The founding fathers warned against borrowing from other nations.

Hey, if NBA players who make tens of millions are allowed to default on loans...

[Latrinsorm]

Just read about it. I don’t care what source you choose. Ultimately it boils down to the reality of the situation being that the republicans, which hold a majority mind you, are getting some cuts but will not compromise unless they get all of their cuts. It even gets stupider when you whittle it down to what cuts are being made and by whom. The dems have offered up at least half of what is asked.The best part is that the Republicans initially asked for only $32 billion, and the Democrats compromised to $33 billion (they... don't know how to haggle), but suddenly the Republicans wanted $70+ billion.

[Kembal]

Apparently there is also some issue with the 27th amendment to the Constitution.

Yeah, that. Congress can't change its pay without an intervening election having taken place. It's supposed to protect against Congressmen voting themselves pay increases during the current term. Unfortunately, it also prevents pay cuts during the current term.

[Kembal]

But the thing is... they won't have to pay for their inaction. They have effectively placed the blame on the shoulders of the Republican Party.. more accurately, the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe Senate Republicans filibustered the omnibus spending bill for FY 2011 in December 2010, leaving it one or two votes short of being passed?

Democrats had a majority, yes, but they didn't have a 60 vote super-majority to break the filibuster. Republicans felt that their House majority and increased amount of seats in the Senate would give them more power over the budget, so they refused to drop the filibuster.

I'm failing to see how the Republicans didn't take the blame on themselves.

[Warriorbird]

lolwut? The age of enlistment has been 18 for a very very long time.

Some people and reality have a very loose relationship. If the ugly chin of fact defies them they will put a brick through it and have a barfight.

[AnticorRifling]

We could go to the Starship Troopers (book, not movie, kthx) school of democracy and ONLY allow veterans to vote.

While I would love that aspect I also realize not everyone can serve, I do believe everyone who is able should serve. That's a different thread for a different day.

It's afraid!!

[Valthissa]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe Senate Republicans filibustered the omnibus spending bill for FY 2011 in December 2010, leaving it one or two votes short of being passed?

Democrats had a majority, yes, but they didn't have a 60 vote super-majority to break the filibuster. Republicans felt that their House majority and increased amount of seats in the Senate would give them more power over the budget, so they refused to drop the filibuster.

I'm failing to see how the Republicans didn't take the blame on themselves.

I think the annual budget process is that the appropriations committees have until sometime in June to submit to the full House and Senate the various appropriation bills for debate. I don't know why that did not happen in 2010. The fact that there was no bill to vote on before mid-December is an indication that there was a breakdown in the process during the 111th congress.

By the time December rolled around the Democrats position was something like 'shit, we need to put something out on this budget thing even if it has no chance of passing so we can later say that those bad Repubs thwarted the will of the people'. My take on the Republican position was they seemed equally shallow thinking along the lines of 'our political calculators seem to indicate that we can howl about lame ducks and other crap which will make Reid and Pelosi look even more impotent than before the election'.

Since I'm a 'pox on both their houses' voter, I'm failing to see how both parties don't own this failure.


C/Valth

[Back]

While I would love that aspect I also realize not everyone can serve, I do believe everyone who is able should serve. That's a different thread for a different day.

It's afraid!!

I actually agree with compulsory service. Go figure.

[~Rocktar~]

While I would love that aspect I also realize not everyone can serve, I do believe everyone who is able should serve. That's a different thread for a different day.

In the book Starship Troopers, they made allowances for some kind of civil service for anyone, in any condition that was willing to put up with the minimum time requirement. Service = Citizenship. And while it was Heinlein's commentary on Fascism there are, like many forms of government, a few good points in there and this, I would agree, is one of them. You graduate high school and unless you are drafted or do service at some time in your life, you don't get a say in what happens. You go about living your life as you want short of that distinction. If you do service, then they put you to work somewhere doing something and in 2 years, you finish and are a Citizen as well as having something on your resume to say you aren't just a mush headed moron.

[AnticorRifling]

Yup.

Also Rocktar you are in the wrong thead, tonight there's only one thread worth posting in GO THERE NOW!

[Bobmuhthol]

Frankly I hope it does shut down.


Honestly, I don't.

I might be late to the party but I found this funny.

[Back]

I might be late to the party but I found this funny.

This is actually a good question albeit a bit late on the eve of the possibility. But wtf, why not make a poll?

[Kembal]

I think the annual budget process is that the appropriations committees have until sometime in June to submit to the full House and Senate the various appropriation bills for debate. I don't know why that did not happen in 2010. The fact that there was no bill to vote on before mid-December is an indication that there was a breakdown in the process during the 111th congress.

By the time December rolled around the Democrats position was something like 'shit, we need to put something out on this budget thing even if it has no chance of passing so we can later say that those bad Repubs thwarted the will of the people'. My take on the Republican position was they seemed equally shallow thinking along the lines of 'our political calculators seem to indicate that we can howl about lame ducks and other crap which will make Reid and Pelosi look even more impotent than before the election'.

Since I'm a 'pox on both their houses' voter, I'm failing to see how both parties don't own this failure.


C/Valth

The House passed all the appropriation bills on-time, if I remember correctly. The Senate, due to the insane amount of filibustering that happened in the 111th Congress, moved extremely slow for the entire year. (I think FY 2010 appropriations didn't get passed on time either) Instead of putting up with a filibuster for every appropriation bill (which would've killed financial regulatory reform due to the amount of time that would've taken), they decided to roll everything together into one massive omnibus bill and just pass that. Republicans consented to this approach, considering the amount of earmarks they had stuffed into the bill as well, and then pulled the football away at the last minute.

In any case, I was disputing more PB's point that the Dems' inaction is the causal effect of the blame falling upon the Tea/Republican Party...I think the Republicans caused the blame on themselves.

[Parkbandit]

The House passed all the appropriation bills on-time, if I remember correctly. The Senate, due to the insane amount of filibustering that happened in the 111th Congress, moved extremely slow for the entire year. (I think FY 2010 appropriations didn't get passed on time either) Instead of putting up with a filibuster for every appropriation bill (which would've killed financial regulatory reform due to the amount of time that would've taken), they decided to roll everything together into one massive omnibus bill and just pass that. Republicans consented to this approach, considering the amount of earmarks they had stuffed into the bill as well, and then pulled the football away at the last minute.

In any case, I was disputing more PB's point that the Dems' inaction is the causal effect of the blame falling upon the Tea/Republican Party...I think the Republicans caused the blame on themselves.

The budget was supposed to be passed in 2010. Are you telling me that the Democrats, who had majorities in both House and Senate, couldn't pass a budget if they wanted to? For an entire year? You really believe that?

[m444w]

Now that Republicans control the government, Democrats can no longer force their liberal agenda on America. The real debate in this budget fight isn't about budget numbers. Listen to how Obama described it yesterday.




If the government shuts down, essential military people, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, will still continue to work, but they won't get paid after the April 8 paycheck.

So your Republican = communist?

[Kembal]

The budget was supposed to be passed in 2010. Are you telling me that the Democrats, who had majorities in both House and Senate, couldn't pass a budget if they wanted to? For an entire year? You really believe that?

Well, if a party constantly filibusters every piece of legislation in order to gum up the works, then you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

The Dems had 59 votes. You need one Republican to cross the aisle. No Republicans did on the budget.

I don't buy that it's the Democrats' fault when it's recorded fact that they tried to pass a budget and the Republicans prevented it.

[Firestorm Killa]

Well, if a party constantly filibusters every piece of legislation in order to gum up the works, then you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

The Dems had 59 votes. You need one Republican to cross the aisle. No Republicans did on the budget.

I don't buy that it's the Democrats' fault when it's recorded fact that they tried to pass a budget and the Republicans prevented it.

Are you that ignorant? The Democrats didn't even introduce a budget when they had control. In fact they decided they weren't going to do one.

[Kembal]

Are you that ignorant? The Democrats didn't even introduce a budget when they had control. In fact they decided they weren't going to do one.

They most certainly introduced an omnibus budget bill in December 2010. Republicans forced them to pull it by demanding every word of the bill to be read out loud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5556-reid-concedes-to-republicans-on-spending-bill

[Firestorm Killa]

They most certainly introduced an omnibus budget bill in December 2010. Republicans forced them to pull it by demanding every word of the bill to be read out loud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5556-reid-concedes-to-republicans-on-spending-bill

Oh so you mean the same omnibus bill that increased spending? And in the lame duck? Is that the only thing you can come up with? lmao Why didn't they pass a budget a year ago before they forced through health care?
Anyways that omnibus in december was a weak attempt. Thanks for coming though.

[Back]

Oh so you mean the same omnibus bill that increased spending? And in the lame duck? Is that the only thing you can come up with? lmao Why didn't they pass a budget a year ago before they forced through health care?

You claimed they did not even try and then when proven wrong you try to switch up your argument?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

They most certainly introduced an omnibus budget bill in December 2010. Republicans forced them to pull it by demanding every word of the bill to be read out loud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5556-reid-concedes-to-republicans-on-spending-bill

So the democrats couldn't read out loud? Or read?

[Kembal]

So the democrats couldn't read out loud? Or read?

No, it was more wasting 50 hours, which would've killed the START treaty or DADT repeal.

BTW, when a bill is forced to be read out loud, that's done by the clerks, not by the legislators. I hope you knew that.