The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Don't Tread On My Right to Tread on You [TEA PARTY]

jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered User regular
edited July 2013 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, its almost that time again: Budget talks.

The Tea Party has officially lost it. Although the threat is nothing more than that, they've shown exactly what they're willing to do to get rid of things they don't like.

60 Congressmen put together a proposal to shut down the United States Government if the ACA funding is included in the budget. These people are willing to put the military, government civilians, disabled or retired veterans, and even ex military citizens who are bettering themselves through education by using the G.I. Bill, through financial hell just to make a political point.

To their credit, the more level headed GOP members have even stated this will not happen, with Richard Burr stating, flatly, that this is the dumbest idea he's ever heard of. Being from North Carolina, that's saying a lot.

The Tea Party is dangerous. God help us if they ever get some sort of Majority in our nations government.

jungleroomx on
«13456715

Posts

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    Let them shut the government down

    Obama is too willing to compromise to prevent this; shutting down the government can only hurt the party that says "the government is worthless", because it turns out people do in fact need it

    He has nothing to gain by compromising with them, in public statements he just needs to emphasize that he is dealing with congress, the least popular institution in the US. He further needs to emphasize that a lot of this shit is their job and "I will sign it when congress does their job and gives me something to sign"

    Republican governors have been taking the "im the executive I have no say in legislative affairs!" to great success.

    override367 on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    He needs to force Boehner to destroy the Hastert rule once and for all and lay the blame at his feet if they won't

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Shutting it down to prove a point is a shitty idea.

    I'm fortunate enough, despite receiving VA compensation for my back and shoulder, to also be receiving the GI Bill. That's how we pay for all the things, at least until I graduate. There are others who are much worse off than me and are only living and a productive member of society because of the VA compensating them for destroying their bodies in the service of their country.

    Shutting off these peoples life support for petty bickering is a shit idea, regardless.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    It's not shutting it down to prove a point, that's a side bonus (the result of who gets the blame)

    You're shutting it down because negotiating with terrorists is a bad idea

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    He'll still be blamed, though.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Let them shut the government down

    shutting down the government can only hurt the party that says "the government is worthless", because it turns out people do in fact need it

    You give too much merit to the Teabaggers' understanding of the cause and effect relationship.

    For anyone with common sense, it would go "We don't need the government, let's shut it all down and... oh shit turns out we actually do need all these government services, that was a bad idea, let's turn it back on!"

    For the Teepers, it'll go "We don't need the government, let's shut it all down and... oh shit why are all these government services not working anymore, there must be something still active in the government, shut it down harder! Harder dammit! Damn these big-government democrats still manage to keep out government services from working right after we shut down the government, we must keep shutting it down harder!"

    sig.gif
  • This content has been removed.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    "Right now too many Americans are out of work for Congress not to do the job they were elected to do."

    Yeah, he's still going to get blamed. But those are people who step in dog shit and unironically say "Thanks Obama". Fuck 'em. Rip the god damn band aid off. It'll hurt, but they will blink - again.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    No one is shutting down the government. I won't be surprised if we get more sequestration down the line, but an outright shut down is not going to happen for any length of time. And this is their last hurrah with the ACA nonsense because once people are getting coverage through the exchanges it will be too popular to repeal.

    If the Teapers had a majority they damn well would shut it down. This is what they do, they fuck over people (or try to) then blame someone else for the things they just did.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    For all of Obama's low approval, congress is probably only a few points more popular than Al Queda

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    You mean less. And Obama's approval isn't really low.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    By the way, in this Teabagger "complete government shutdown" proposal that includes stopping the salaries of government employees, military, veterans, etc., I'm just wondering... does it include not paying salaries to Congressmen? I'm going to go ahead and bet it doesn't.

    sig.gif
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    No one is shutting down the government. I won't be surprised if we get more sequestration down the line, but an outright shut down is not going to happen for any length of time. And this is their last hurrah with the ACA nonsense because once people are getting coverage through the exchanges it will be too popular to repeal.

    More sequestration? We need to get rid of the sequestration we have before it doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do!

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The President is sounding a pretty hard line against the original sequestration, for what it's worth.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    By the way, in this Teabagger "complete government shutdown" proposal that includes stopping the salaries of government employees, military, veterans, etc., I'm just wondering... does it include not paying salaries to Congressmen? I'm going to go ahead and bet it doesn't.

    Of course it doesn't. That's why they threaten to shut it down over everything.

    These people are truly sick.

  • This content has been removed.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    The President is sounding a pretty hard line against the original sequestration, for what it's worth.

    He wants the sequestration to be rolled back because its fucking our nation up, and yes, its hard line.

    Maybe someone will get a spine somewhere and actually make Wall Street pay taxes as well.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    I wouldn't really be truly happy unless Obama started declaring investment bankers enemy combatants and sending them to CIA blacksites for interrogation, but anything at all would be better than what we've gotten

    At list this SAC insider trading thing might put a few hedge fund managers in jail

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    The President is sounding a pretty hard line against the original sequestration, for what it's worth.

    The problem is it doesn't translate into anything though. Sequestration became the new normal. It's going to be an uphill battle from here on out to ever get back to normal spending levels.

    The new normal is reduced growth in GDP and marked reduction of government services for the poor?

    Man, you financial guys are truly out of touch.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    By the way, in this Teabagger "complete government shutdown" proposal that includes stopping the salaries of government employees, military, veterans, etc., I'm just wondering... does it include not paying salaries to Congressmen? I'm going to go ahead and bet it doesn't.

    Of course not, they are vital government employees.

    They are also to a man, millionaires. I think there is only a few that under that 1 million fortune line and in the Senate its even worse.

    Joe Biden and Barack Obama where among the poorest senators when they where elected. Obama, because he was a relatively young guy with his autobiographies as a main source of wealth. Biden, because Biden is awesome.

    Explains the federal governments complete disdain for the poor and the elderly doesn't it?

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    I wouldn't really be truly happy unless Obama started declaring investment bankers enemy combatants and sending them to CIA blacksites for interrogation, but anything at all would be better than what we've gotten

    At list this SAC insider trading thing might put a few hedge fund managers in jail

    Yeah right.

    Wall Street runs our country now. They can pretty much do anything with peoples money and get away with it because of Teaper policies of starving the beast, the beast being the eeeeeevil SEC.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    The President is sounding a pretty hard line against the original sequestration, for what it's worth.

    The problem is it doesn't translate into anything though. Sequestration became the new normal. It's going to be an uphill battle from here on out to ever get back to normal spending levels.

    The new normal is reduced growth in GDP and marked reduction of government services for the poor?

    Man, you financial guys are truly out of touch.

    Man, water really is wet.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    By the way, in this Teabagger "complete government shutdown" proposal that includes stopping the salaries of government employees, military, veterans, etc., I'm just wondering... does it include not paying salaries to Congressmen? I'm going to go ahead and bet it doesn't.

    In their defense, changing Congressional salaries within the same Congressional term is unconstitutional.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Strictly speaking, those are two different scenarios. Congress can't withhold its own pay if it doesn't pass the budget [or something else] by a certain deadline, but if the government shuts down, nobody gets paid.

  • gavindelgavindel The reason all your software is brokenRegistered User regular
    The President is sounding a pretty hard line against the original sequestration, for what it's worth.

    The problem is it doesn't translate into anything though. Sequestration became the new normal. It's going to be an uphill battle from here on out to ever get back to normal spending levels.

    The new normal is reduced growth in GDP and marked reduction of government services for the poor?

    Man, you financial guys are truly out of touch.

    Its a sucky new normal, but that does seem like an accurate appraisal. I don't know how we're going to manage any useful legislation when we have to have budget circus every three to six months.

    Book - Royal road - Free! Seraphim === TTRPG - Wuxia - Free! Seln Alora
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    Strictly speaking, those are two different scenarios. Congress can't withhold its own pay if it doesn't pass the budget [or something else] by a certain deadline, but if the government shuts down, nobody gets paid.

    This isn't true, Congress and the President are paid through a government shutdown. I believe there is legislation that has passed in the Senate to change this, but like a lot of things its stuck in the House.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Let them shut the government down

    Obama is too willing to compromise to prevent this; shutting down the government can only hurt the party that says "the government is worthless", because it turns out people do in fact need it

    Nooooope. This does not work.

    The expected reaction: "Gee, I guess we really do need a government to keep things running, so I should pay my taxes."

    The actual reaction: "We can't rely on the government to keep things running, so what the fuck am I paying taxes for?"

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • This content has been removed.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Congressional salaries(while most of us would be happy to earn them) isn't really a factor to most of congress. You don't get elected because you can stretch your monthly income to cover expenses; you get elected because you have enough free time/income to spend a year not working while campaigning.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Let them shut the government down

    Obama is too willing to compromise to prevent this; shutting down the government can only hurt the party that says "the government is worthless", because it turns out people do in fact need it

    Nooooope. This does not work.

    The expected reaction: "Gee, I guess we really do need a government to keep things running, so I should pay my taxes."

    The actual reaction: "We can't rely on the government to keep things running, so what the fuck am I paying taxes for?"

    This is not how it worked during the Clinton administration.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    To be fair, we'll probably stop having to go through budget circus every six months once a Republican is in the White House. You'll still get a small cadre of Teapers threatening to burn the country down, but the rest of the Pubs will know better than to make the president look bad.

    In the meantime, though, yeah - we're going to deal with this shit constantly. New normal, indeed.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    The President is sounding a pretty hard line against the original sequestration, for what it's worth.

    The problem is it doesn't translate into anything though. Sequestration became the new normal. It's going to be an uphill battle from here on out to ever get back to normal spending levels.

    The new normal is reduced growth in GDP and marked reduction of government services for the poor?

    Man, you financial guys are truly out of touch.

    From the GOP's perspective, the current spending rates are the baseline now. It is exactly like how repealing the Bush tax cuts was viewed as a tax increase, not a return to the old baseline. Once something is in effect, it is uphill to change it, even if you are just changing it back to how it used to be.

    SKFM is right. It is highly unlikely that we will ever roll back to pre-sequestration spending levels all at once.

    However that doesn't stop future Congresses from allocating spending per-program.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Honestly, I was always somewhat torn on the sequestration, because for all its faults, I don't know when else you would ever get congress to actually cut the military budget.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • This content has been removed.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Honestly, I was always somewhat torn on the sequestration, because for all its faults, I don't know when else you would ever get congress to actually cut the military budget.

    My very favorite sequestration story came from a piece Maddow did about a month ago. There was some relatively big news that the Navy managed to land a fighter sized drone on a carrier. So she traced the program back to all its previous developments and every time this one guy would talk to the press about it. But he didn't when they finally managed their actual goal. Because he was furloughed. Still stationed on the carrier, but prevented from working.

    Which is such a productive use of everyone's time.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Honestly, I was always somewhat torn on the sequestration, because for all its faults, I don't know when else you would ever get congress to actually cut the military budget.

    My very favorite sequestration story came from a piece Maddow did about a month ago. There was some relatively big news that the Navy managed to land a fighter sized drone on a carrier. So she traced the program back to all its previous developments and every time this one guy would talk to the press about it. But he didn't when they finally managed their actual goal. Because he was furloughed. Still stationed on the carrier, but prevented from working.

    Which is such a productive use of everyone's time.

    So he's still housed and fed by the taxpayer but not allowed to be productive

    This Fucking Congress, I swear

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    Uh

    Why do they only have one guy to do press releases.

    Also, remember the government shutdown of 1995 was a win for the Republican party. Just ask Newt.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    I recall it being disastrous for the Republican party, but regardless what does obama have to lose?

    2014 is already a done deal win for the GOP in both chambers, why help them burn the country down in the mean time

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    That was the joke.
    Well, Newt was the joke.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    It just revealed the truth, Newt was always a joke

Sign In or Register to comment.