What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

About it:

Boehner: "The president said if there's an unconditional surrender, he'll talk to Republicans. That's not the way our gov't works"

For 237 years our government has worked by congress legislating and voting on bills. It's never worked with the minority party trying to gain massively distorted power by threats to harm the whole nation.

If Obama is saying no negotiation under the shadow of threats then he's got 237 years of precedent on his side.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Shut the fuck up you lying yellow belly.

Come visit me here in Houston sometime...I'd love to see you try, tuff guy war hero.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fuck you fat boy, you wouldn't have room to breathe.

You so tuff, l'il man, yes you are! Yes you are!
http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww208/tsikes_bucket/internettoughguy.png

 

[koalabear]

Come visit me here in Houston sometime...I'd love to see you try, tuff guy war hero.

You so tuff, l'il man, yes you are! Yes you are!
http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww208/tsikes_bucket/internettoughguy.png

Watch out, Fatty may fall on you.

 

[richard_daily]

Watch out, Fatty may fall on you.

Are you and your boyfriend into crushing?

 

[koalabear]

Are you and your boyfriend into crushing?

Hey! It's lil fag chihuahua, still looking for ken and paul are you.

 

[richard_daily]

Hey! It's lil fag chihuahua, still looking for ken and paul are you.

Why are you calling your boyfriend a fag chihauhua? He's still on ken's facebook, does that make you jealous?

 

[koalabear]

Why are you calling your boyfriend a fag chihauhua? He's still on ken's facebook, does that make you jealous?

I don't keep track of ken's facebook, apparently you do though.

 

[richard_daily]

I don't keep track of ken's facebook, apparently you do though.

Ask your boyfriend about it. You're not jealous?

 

[koalabear]

Ask your boyfriend about it. You're not jealous?

No, you can check on ken all you want. maybe you will find him again.

 

[richard_daily]

No, you can check on ken all you want. maybe you will find him again.

I've never checked with ken about anything. Your boyfriend on the other hand, had quite a relationship with him. I'm sorry if that hits you particularly hard.

 

[koalabear]

I've never checked with ken about anything. Your boyfriend on the other hand, had quite a relationship with him. I'm sorry if that hits you particularly hard.

You seem to hung up on vette now, you can't make a post without him. Hang in there, maybe ken will come back for you.

 

[Wrong Element]

For 237 years our government has worked by congress legislating and voting on bills. It's never worked with the minority party trying to gain massively distorted power by threats to harm the whole nation.

If Obama is saying no negotiation under the shadow of threats then he's got 237 years of precedent on his side.

What, you don't remember that time Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn't pass a CR unless Dubya agreed to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour?

 

[richard_daily]

You seem to hung up on vette now, you can't make a post without him. Hang in there, maybe ken will come back for you.

I'm glad that you can finally admit that you two are a couple.

That's a big step for you.

 

[phrodeau]

What, you don't remember that time Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn't pass a CR unless Dubya agreed to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour?

Oh, did that work?

 

[Sean Renaud]

What, you don't remember that time Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn't pass a CR unless Dubya agreed to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour?

Fuck no I don't. Do you remember the time when Pelosi wouldn't pass a budget for five years no matter what she was offered?

 

[Que]

For 237 years our government has worked by congress legislating and voting on bills. It's never worked with the minority party trying to gain massively distorted power by threats to harm the whole nation.

If Obama is saying no negotiation under the shadow of threats then he's got 237 years of precedent on his side.

What does this mean?

The House votes on appropriations bills; the Senate sends it to the president- or they don't. He signs it or vetos it which is his SOLE power.

These days the Senate doesn't, EVER...so we are working on continuing resolutions instead of approved (by either side) budgets.... House has passed budgets, Senate wont consider or even propose their own. You familiar with any of this?

Obama proposed budgets...DEMOCRATS rejected them, it was too ridiculous for them to consider.

Obama hasn't successfully 'negotiated' anything, ever... that would require he become somewhat conversant with the numbers and the issues...hard to do without a teleprompter, give and take scares him because he is incapable. A speech is not a negotiation

Previously, in one of Obama's failed attempts at the art of the deal, Boehner bowed and scraped to his own party and got concessions...you think Boehner is going to trust Obama's vague assurances of concessions after the fact?

What he HAS is issue some pronouncements, some edicts and some orders...none of which is how the legislative process has ever been done, including now.

Reagan DEFINITELY negotiated with the other side...the other side had a difference of opinion...'His" way was delayed two full years in a compromise he worked out with then speaker Tip O'Neil, who hoped the time would enable him to gain seats, but they lost them.

A LOT of the Bush spent the Clinton surplus crap you hear was Bush (wrongly) acceding to democratic demands...his father famously broke his no new taxes pledge to 'go along to get along' with the democrats...

Since Obama has said from the beginning and acted accordingly that elections have consequences and I won...WHY would capitulating give the republicans ANY leverage at all?

Since The House (elected far more recently than the Senate) was elected to stop specifically Obamacare and to reign in Pelosi-Reid out of control spending, why is it they must or even should give in and simply give Obama everything he wants or face shut-down...they gave him EVERYTHING (including the out of control Pelosi-Reid spending) EXCEPT Obamacare which is clearly not ready to go anyway, and THEY are the obstructionists?

Keep repeating it, maybe it will be true in an alternate universe.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

what does this mean?

the house votes on appropriations bills the senate sends it to the president or they don't.

These days the senate doesnt, EVER...so we are working on continuing resolutions instead of approved (by either side) budgets.... House has passed budgets, senate wont consider or even propose their own. You familiar with any of this?

Obama proposed budgets...DEMOCRATS rejected them, it was too ridiculous for them to consider.

Obama hasn't 'negotiated' anything, ever... that would require he become somewhat conversant with the numbers and the issues...hard to do without a teleprompter, give an.d take scares him because he is incapable.

What he has done is issue some pronouncements some edicts and some orders...none of which is how the legislative process has ever been done, including now.

Reagan DEFINITELY negotiated with the other side...the other side had a difference of opinion...'His" way was delayed two full years in a compromise he worked out with then speaker Tip O'Neil, who hoped the time would enable him to gain seats, but they lost them.

All of the bush spent the clinton surplus crap you hear was Bush (wrongly) acceding to democratic demands...his father famously broke his no new taxes pledge to 'go along to get along' with the democrats...

and since Obama has said from the beginning and acted accordingly that elections have consequences and I won...WHY would capitulating give the republicans ANY leverage at all?

since the house (elected far more recently than the Senate) was elected to stop specifically obamacare and to reign in pelosi-reid out of control spending, why is it they must or even should give in and simply give obama everything he wants or face shut-down...they gave him EVERYTHING EXCEPT Obamacare which is clearly not ready to go anyway, and THEY are the obstructionists?

keep repeating it, maybe it will be true in an alternate universe.

Perhaps if the House sent a budget bill to the Senate that they didn't already know would be rejected. Maybe, just maybe you would have a point.

 

[Que]

Perhaps if the House sent a budget bill to the Senate that they didn't already know would be rejected. Maybe, just maybe you would have a point.

ANY serious House bill is and has been rejected by The Senate. How is this new? And by rejected I mean doesn't even get proposed for debate, much less an up or down vote.

A serious Senate would have taken the bill, allowed some on the record debate, closed down debate, then amended to replace funding for Obamacare, then sent back to the house. But they don't want vulnerable senators on Record demanding the unpopular Obamacare, so they play their little word games and Obama apologists take up his standard and proudly march to his defense.

Keep in mind both Reid and Obama have stated that anything less than ALL spending on everything including Obamacare is a non-starter. So unless they want to meekly ask the king what he desires and rubber stamp it?

How is this impasse one-sided?

They were not sent to The House to continue the very policies that resulted in the biggest upset of ANY party in history. You think "The People" wanted them to bow down to King Obama? He squeeked by an election where the populous decided not to fire a historic president, but he had no mandate for HIS childish and petulant behavior.

so the senate having NO counter, and sending NO budget to the house with a snowball's chance is simply "great governance"?

The Democrats used the threat of the power of the purse (probably wisely) to encourage Nixon to reconsider the scope of the Vietnam war...you think that was horrible too, right?

The whole lets fund just the cancer kids thing was a stunt, obviously but it is Harry and Barack saying ALL OR NOTHING or the national park service will close another overlook.

I'm not proud of the Republicans (mostly that they didn't exhibit some courage of conviction immediately in 2010 this crap is too little too late...), but you CAN'T seriously defend the Dems on this and be credible.

 

[Que]

Fuck no I don't. Do you remember the time when Pelosi wouldn't pass a budget for five years no matter what she was offered?

On that note, SOMETHING has to be done about the tradition of He(or She)-that-doesn't-die-or-get-convicted-or(unlikely)-get-voted-out-of-office the LONGEST runs the place.

That GUARANTEES you get an intransigent (and probably old and senile) pol in a VERY safe district who has the clout to bludgeon his or her enemies and reward his district with favors.

I will gladly agree to a prisoner swap...Boehner for Pelosi...lets all agree they both go. Hell, If I had the power, I'd likely make the release unilaterally, but I'd try and hold out for say at least Maxine Waters.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

ANY serious House bill is and has been rejected by The Senate. How is this new? And by rejected I mean doesn't even get proposed for debate, much less an up or down vote.

A serious Senate would have taken the bill, allowed some on the record debate, closed down debate, then amended to replace funding for Obamacare, then sent back to the house. But they don't want vulnerable senators on Record demanding the unpopular Obamacare, so they play their little word games and Obama apologists take up his standard and proudly march to his defense.

Keep in mind both Reid and Obama have stated that anything less than ALL spending on everything including Obamacare is a non-starter. So unless they want to meekly ask the king what he desires and rubber stamp it?

How is this impasse one-sided?

They were not sent to The House to continue the very policies that resulted in the biggest upset of ANY party in history. You think "The People" wanted them to bow down to King Obama? He squeeked by an election where the populous decided not to fire a historic president, but he had no mandate for HIS childish and petulant behavior.

so the senate having NO counter, and sending NO budget to the house with a snowball's chance is simply "great governance"?

The Democrats used the threat of the power of the purse (probably wisely) to encourage Nixon to reconsider the scope of the Vietnam war...you think that was horrible too, right?

The whole lets fund just the cancer kids thing was a stunt, obviously but it is Harry and Barack saying ALL OR NOTHING or the national park service will close another overlook.

I'm not proud of the Republicans (mostly that they didn't exhibit some courage of conviction immediately in 2010 this crap is too little too late...), but you CAN'T seriously defend the Dems on this and be credible.

Then, in The Real World™....

The US Senate rejected a new budget measure passed just hours earlier by the House that would also unravel President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, pushing the US government dangerously close to a shutdown.

The bill would have continued to fund the government after the current fiscal year's budget expires at midnight on Monday in Washington, DC.

But it would also have delayed by one year the "individual mandate" in the Affordable Care Act, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate is scheduled to take effect this year.

Senate Democrats, and the president, have promised to block any such provisions, and indeed the Senate swiftly voted 54-46 to reject the measure. It was the second such vote of the day.

It looks like there was a debate, there was a vote, and they rejected the House budget bill because (TADAAA!) it contained a poison pill that the House knew already would be rejected, because bills with the same rider had been rejected several times already. There have been NO serious budget bills to come out of the House that weren't loaded with attempts to repeal/defund/destroy the ACA because they haven't the votes to do so without holding the economy hostage.

As for the Senate not sending the bill back to the House:

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday approved stopgap spending legislation to keep the federal government open without gutting President Obama’s health care law, putting new pressure on Speaker John A. Boehner to find a way out of an impasse that had the government on a steady course to a shutdown at midnight Monday.
The 54-to-44 vote to send the measure back to the House came after the Senate, in a bipartisan rebuke to Republican hard-liners, cut off debate on House legislation that would fund the government only if money for the new health law was eliminated.

Economic terrorism.

As for your "Obama has no mandate" screed. He won the last Presidential election where the stated goal was to repeal and/or defund the Affordable Care Act. We voted, you lost, he won.

 

[phrodeau]

What does this mean?

The House votes on appropriations bills; the Senate sends it to the president- or they don't. He signs it or vetos it which is his SOLE power.

These days the Senate doesn't, EVER...so we are working on continuing resolutions instead of approved (by either side) budgets.... House has passed budgets, Senate wont consider or even propose their own. You familiar with any of this?

Obama proposed budgets...DEMOCRATS rejected them, it was too ridiculous for them to consider.

Obama hasn't successfully 'negotiated' anything, ever... that would require he become somewhat conversant with the numbers and the issues...hard to do without a teleprompter, give and take scares him because he is incapable. A speech is not a negotiation

Previously, in one of Obama's failed attempts at the art of the deal, Boehner bowed and scraped to his own party and got concessions...you think Boehner is going to trust Obama's vague assurances of concessions after the fact?

What he HAS is issue some pronouncements, some edicts and some orders...none of which is how the legislative process has ever been done, including now.

Reagan DEFINITELY negotiated with the other side...the other side had a difference of opinion...'His" way was delayed two full years in a compromise he worked out with then speaker Tip O'Neil, who hoped the time would enable him to gain seats, but they lost them.

A LOT of the Bush spent the Clinton surplus crap you hear was Bush (wrongly) acceding to democratic demands...his father famously broke his no new taxes pledge to 'go along to get along' with the democrats...

Since Obama has said from the beginning and acted accordingly that elections have consequences and I won...WHY would capitulating give the republicans ANY leverage at all?

Since The House (elected far more recently than the Senate) was elected to stop specifically Obamacare and to reign in Pelosi-Reid out of control spending, why is it they must or even should give in and simply give Obama everything he wants or face shut-down...they gave him EVERYTHING (including the out of control Pelosi-Reid spending) EXCEPT Obamacare which is clearly not ready to go anyway, and THEY are the obstructionists?

Keep repeating it, maybe it will be true in an alternate universe.

You say the President has nothing to do with it, then you blame him for not doing anything.

Congress does not need the President's signature. Congress can override any veto the President chooses to make. If they can't muster the support, they don't get their pet legislation passed. It's Civics 101. The fault for the shutdown is squarely on Congress.

 

[kbate]

Perhaps if the House sent a budget bill to the Senate that they didn't already know would be rejected. Maybe, just maybe you would have a point.

Perhaps if the Senate didn't demand that the budget be "Their" budget. . .

and around and around and around we go!

 

[richard_daily]

Perhaps if the Senate didn't demand that the budget be "Their" budget. . .

and around and around and around we go!

So wasting billions on trying to de-fund obama care, and failing every time is responsible governing in what way?

The law was passed, and it is the congresses duty to do their job and pass a budget funding all mandated spending.