The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In the 4th year without a budget, the government now experiences it's 13th shutdown in history. 

As the House moved toward passing legislation that will likely result in a government shutdown, President Obama excused himself to play his customary Saturday golf, a round that set a record for most golf outings in a year since he became president.  Andrews hosted the president and his customary golf entourage for the 35th time this year, setting a new record (175 hours, or 4.375 work weeks) and the year is not over yet.

As each new domestic, economic, and foreign crisis unfolds, new opportunities to improve the president's short game will present themselves. 

However the president must be commended for taking time away from his game to meet with his cabinet for the very first time of his second term, and only the 17th such meeting of his presidency.  Unfortunately he repeatedly turned down requests to meet with congress and help to hammer out a last minute deal on the budget (that's not his job). 

The house presented four iterations of the budget CR, each with deeper and deeper compromises.  The Senate refused any compromises. The second of which would have kept the government open in exchange for delaying the health care law's individual mandate and eliminating federal health care contributions for lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides. SENATE:DENIED

The third sent to the senate over the weekend to repeal a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices and delay Obamacare by a year.  SENATE:DENIED

Finally late last night the House proposed a 1 week CR that would keep the gov funded while they work on yet another compromise.  SENATE:DENIED

Meanwhile, playing from the tips. . .

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/8167138241_7f5fe56391_n.jpg)

The good news is that the American people can enjoy an NSA free day!

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 07:30:19 AM
In the 4th year without a budget, the government now experiences it's 13th shutdown in history.  

As the House moved toward passing legislation that will likely result in a government shutdown, President Obama excused himself to play his customary Saturday golf, a round that set a record for most golf outings in a year since he became president.  Andrews hosted the president and his customary golf entourage for the 35th time this year, setting a new record (175 hours, or 4.375 work weeks) and the year is not over yet.

As each new domestic, economic, and foreign crisis unfolds, new opportunities to improve the president's short game will present themselves.  

However the president must be commended for taking time away from his game to meet with his cabinet for the very first time of his second term, and only the 17th such meeting of his presidency.  Unfortunately he repeatedly turned down requests to meet with congress and help to hammer out a last minute deal on the budget (that's not his job).  

The house presented four iterations of the budget CR, each with deeper and deeper compromises.  The Senate refused any compromises. The second of which would have kept the government open in exchange for delaying the health care law's individual mandate and eliminating federal health care contributions for lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides. SENATE:DENIED

The third sent to the senate over the weekend to repeal a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices and delay Obamacare by a year.  SENATE:DENIED

Finally late last night the House proposed a 1 week CR that would keep the gov funded while they work on yet another compromise.  SENATE:DENIED

Meanwhile, playing from the tips. . .

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/8167138241_7f5fe56391_n.jpg)

The good news is that the American people can enjoy an NSA free day!

Elections have consequences...oh, I forget who I'm talking to here.  All the house had to do was pass a clean CR: DENIED.  This is the TP faction of the Rs acting like big babies here and Boehner (aka Boozy McOrangeface) with no spine as a Speaker.

Let's see if I understand this right. The ACA bill passed in both the House and Senate. President Obama signed it into law. The Republicans opposed it and challenged it in court. After it reached the Supreme Court, the ACA was deemed acceptable under our Constitution.  What part of "democratic process" is beyond Republican understanding?

Quote from: Ed W on October 01, 2013, 08:33:34 AM
Let's see if I understand this right. The ACA bill passed in both the House and Senate. President Obama signed it into law. The Republicans opposed it and challenged it in court. After it reached the Supreme Court, the ACA was deemed acceptable under our Constitution.  What part of "democratic process" is beyond Republican understanding?

Because the majority of their constituents dislike the law, many in Congress are attempting different ways to fix it before it takes affect.  Many others would like to repeal and replace the bill.  
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/

Lesson learned is that it would be a good idea to read bills before passage, otherwise they represent executive legislation without representative oversight.

It seems that the house is actually acting on behalf of the people they represent instead of the interests of government.  That is really quite rare.  The Senate is acting on their own behalf and finds themselves here due to their reluctance to pass any permanent budget measures that would likely curtail the spending necessary to maintain funding for expanding programs.

Obamacare is law, passed without review, under cover of darkness.  As a republic, it is the job of our elected representatives to consider and reflect our will when passing legislation.  That includes abolishing or amending the laws we find unjust.  The executive and judicial branches have no authority to legislate, or amend, however Congress has allowed that to happen, and that needs to stop.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
Because the majority of their constituents dislike the law, many in Congress are attempting different ways to fix it before it takes affect.  

Huh, you said "law" instead of "bill" like the other Ted Cruzers.

This is grandstanding on both sides.  This has nothing to do with anyone caring one way or another.  This is purely to be able to say "I did this" or "they did this" in the next mid-term.

We go on with our day and wait for the next sound bite from someone.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
Because the majority of their constituents dislike the law, many in Congress are attempting different ways to fix it before it takes affect.  Many others would like to repeal and replace the bill.  
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/

What is not shown in that poll is that many, like me, don't approve of the law and don't like the way the President handled it... BUT we don't approve of those things because the President "compromised" when he didn't have to, with people (many Republicans) that were never going to be happy with the law and would fight against it regardless of how or how much he compromised, and who didn't even care if he compromised or not.  Actually, they are glad he compromised for what we ended up with was a muddled bill/law that is indeed more complicated and expensive because he did "compromise" and thus makes it an even easier target for them to attack.  

The law didn't go far enough because of the "compromises" and ended up some halfway, cumbersome, more costly than it should have been, mess.  And part of that is because the Republicans weren't part of the process, because they showed that they did not want the law to happen at all.  No amount of reaching out was going to get that position to change. It was better politically to be able to say "it was all done in the shadows without our input".  Like their input would have been trying to make it better? Really?

What the Repubs don't want is for the law to go into effect and then the discussion try to turn again to, "how can we make this better, more efficient, more helpful, etc.".  Many don't want to ever be in the position of having to have that discussion, so they will still only fight to make it go away, period.    

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
Because the majority of their constituents dislike the law, many in Congress are attempting different ways to fix it before it takes affect.  Many others would like to repeal and replace the bill.  
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/

Lesson learned is that it would be a good idea to read bills before passage, otherwise they represent executive legislation without representative oversight.

It seems that the house is actually acting on behalf of the people they represent instead of the interests of government.  That is really quite rare.  The Senate is acting on their own behalf and finds themselves here due to their reluctance to pass any permanent budget measures that would likely curtail the spending necessary to maintain funding for expanding programs.

Obamacare is law, passed without review, under cover of darkness.  As a republic, it is the job of our elected representatives to consider and reflect our will when passing legislation.  That includes abolishing or amending the laws we find unjust.  The executive and judicial branches have no authority to legislate, or amend, however Congress has allowed that to happen, and that needs to stop.

Hey, here's a fun idea, let the clean bill go up for a vote in the house. It would pass easily but the Tea Party can't have that, can they?

Congressional Republicans approval rating is down to 17%. Yes, only 17%, with a whopping 74% disapproval rating.

Democrats aren't doing too well either that 32% approval and 60% disapproval, but that's worlds better than what Rs are getting. Americans are also against shutting down government over healthcare by a 72-22 margin.

Seriously I am not sure that the Republican Party will survive this if it goes on for a couple of weeks and they also force a default on the debt. There is such a fissure now in the party and the only thing holding it together is the threat of Tea Party primary battles against the more reasonable members (and the leadership!). I can really see the core of the Republican Party leaving the Tea Party dysfunction behind and creating a "New" (old) Republican Party if that's what it takes to get back to doing the business of government.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/congress-approval-government-shutdown-2013-97617.html

Quote from: swake on October 01, 2013, 11:53:24 AM
I can really see the core of the Republican Party leaving the Tea Party dysfunction behind and creating a "New" (old) Republican Party if that's what it takes to get back to doing the business of government. 

We can only wait and see.  The posturing and cra-cra antics in order to get face time and votes is a big ol' negative.

It'd be great to see headlines like "Congress works together to get the economy going again."  Not the "Small faction of mental midgets keeping everything at a stand still again."

If they can't identify the USA on a globe, they should have to abstain. 

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
Obamacare is law, passed without review, under cover of darkness.  As a republic, it is the job of our elected representatives to consider and reflect our will when passing legislation.

First, please stop trying to rewrite history. The negotiations over the ACA lasted for months. Months that you have previously whined about having been wasted, yet when it is convenient, you say it was some sort of submarine bill that popped up and surprised everybody and imply some sort of shadowy conspiracy. Take your meds.

Secondly, elections have consequences. Romney ran on repealing Obamacare and lost. Almost every one of the Republican candidates for House and Senate ran on repealing Obamacare, yet they still net lost seats in the House and Senate in the last election. After Kerry lost in 2004, you were one of the loudest bloviators on this board crowing about elections having consequences and blah blah blah. I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Thirdly, it is the job of our elected representatives to provide for funding to run the government they have authorized. The Tea Partyists and Boehner are standing in the way like obstinate little children.

Quote from: Townsend on October 01, 2013, 12:01:02 PM
We can only wait and see.  The posturing and cra-cra antics in order to get face time and votes is a big ol' negative.

It'd be great to see headlines like "Congress works together to get the economy going again."  Not the "Small faction of mental midgets keeping everything at a stand still again."

If they can't identify the USA on a globe, they should have to abstain. 

I think it's going to split if they can't stop it soon. Big Business, the US Chamber, the markets are all against the shutdown. And I think the split will come from the leadership. All the money behind the GOP not coming from the Koch brothers and company will go with them.

McConnell has to be all for getting away from the Tea Party. They are already going to pit him in a primary fight with some Heritage Foundation approved moron. McConnell can be Minority leader of the "Don't Have my Head Stuck Up My A$$ New Republican Party with no personal primary battle and Ted Cruz can have the Republican Party.

Boehner's calculation is different but I think he's going to eventually get there. If he goes against the Tea Party today he likely loses his speakership and likely will also have a primary bloodbath on his hands. He probably will have that anyway. If he doesn't go against the TP and this drags on then the upcoming election will be a bloodbath for the Republican Party and he loses his speakership. He is in a no win situation. His only hope may eventually be a third party where he can hope to win some sort of a coalition speakership with no one party with a majority.

Should've posted this earlier:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--qi9t0WNxqM/UF8wBxkXzEI/AAAAAAAAW7w/-_EjeSpZOaU/s1600/US_globe.png)

In case anyone knows someone, you know...

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
Because the majority of their constituents Insurance Industry Campaign Donors dislike the law, many in Congress are attempting different ways to fix it before it takes affect.  Many others would like to repeal and replace the bill.

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
Because the majority of their constituents dislike the law, many in Congress are attempting different ways to fix it before it takes affect.  Many others would like to repeal and replace the bill.  

Kind of the whole point, isn't it...the tea baggers say they "want" a bill - just not this one.  Well, why didn't they present a bill ANY TIME in the last 70 years or so...??

Oh, wait...that's right - I remember now - they have been fighting against ALL the bills that whole time.  I guess that's why they didn't present one.

Funny, but sad.

Yesterday in D.C., at the WWII war memorial they moved out barricades to shut it down.  This is an open park, with only the occasional maintenance worker sweeping up debris. Yesterday parks employees put a few metal barricades across the entrances, and tried to turn away a group of WWII vets, but they broke through the barricades and were able to pay their respects and enjoy the park.

This morning the parks service has delivered and setup extra barricades, added police tape, and posted security forces with zip-ties to arrest anyone else who attempts to visit the park.  Washington Examiner reporter Charles Spiering counts 7 parks security workers patrolling the entrances today.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3778/10053839176_41a88f530e.jpg)

Next week's scheduled Honor Flight WWII vets have been threatened with arrest if they attempt to visit the park.
Much like with the sequesterpocolips, the administration is going the extra mile.

More reinforcements arrive.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5536/10053980586_fc6b886543.jpg)

Mechelle Obama has even suspended her FREE Twitter account:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2884/10053818354_0fcafca302.jpg)

Forces also dispatched to the MLK Memorial.  It's hard to close these open parks.  Requires lots of security and barricades.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3737/10054193214_9064af1e16.jpg)

For what it's worth, Jon Stewart's take:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/jon-stewart-house-republican-morons_n_4029406.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/jon-stewart-house-republican-morons_n_4029406.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)

Because, frankly, in Oklahoma, we can't do much about it.

The Obama administration has ordered the erection of additional Barrycades at the (normally open 24hrs) Lincoln Memorial too.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/10038857045_4e367e7787.jpg)

The same group of WWII vets that broke through the barrycades at the WWII memorial yesterday are planning to storm the barrycades at the Lincoln Memorial today.  This should be interesting.

Greatest Generation!

HonorFlight has just posted "it's about to get crazier" as the vets are planning to tear down the barrycades at the WWII memorial again at 11am (Eastern) this morning.  About 15 minutes.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
HonorFlight has just posted "it's about to get crazier" as the vets are planning to tear down the barrycades at the WWII memorial again at 11am (Eastern) this morning.  About 15 minutes.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcc4IJOS4Ut4dYUYBav3GZOR7iAvv3UnBN9v23G37tm0L1aAQ3Ug)

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 09:09:01 AM
Forces also dispatched to the MLK Memorial.  It's hard to close these open parks.  Requires lots of security and barricades.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3737/10054193214_9064af1e16.jpg)

Good. It provides a visible and public reminder to the stupidity that is shutting down the government due the wants of ~30 House Tea Party idiots who don't care about good governance or the damage they are doing to the economy. And better to fight now than in two weeks. These fools need to publicly humiliated and broken before we get to the fight over the debt ceiling. Obama and the Democrats should not give an inch on this or there's going to be a new and even worse blackmail list in two weeks. It's time to stop allowing the Tea Party to hold 300 million people hostage. The best way to prevent future shutdowns is to not negotiate.

Unfortunately that's also the mindset of the TP'ers.

Heard Cruz on NPR today. Apparently he thinks every conversation is a filibuster. What a nit.

Breached without incident.

Group led by Democrat Senator Clare McCaskill who was horrified by the spectacle.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2855/10055029864_e63bf87d2e.jpg)

on to the Lincoln Memorial next.

Looks like the admin is in retreat on this buffoonery.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7330/10055083514_4a050dbd6a.jpg)

Quote from: swake on October 01, 2013, 11:53:24 AM

Seriously I am not sure that the Republican Party will survive this if it goes on for a couple of weeks and they also force a default on the debt.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/congress-approval-government-shutdown-2013-97617.html

I'm sure this is their plan: to keep the government closed until they can pair the debt limit default as an additional bullet in the chamber.

Quote from: carltonplace on October 02, 2013, 10:10:20 AM
I'm sure this is their plan: to keep the government closed until they can pair the debt limit default as an additional bullet in the chamber.

Oh, I am certain of it.  Why have two battles a couple of months apart, if you can get everyone to the table at once and be done with it?

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 09:35:23 AM
The Obama administration has ordered the erection of additional Barrycades at the (normally open 24hrs) Lincoln Memorial too.

I applaud the tenacity of the vets as they exercise a bit of non-violent civil disobedience, but what you are seeing is routine for NPS Park Police.
If they cant protect the site with their presence, they have to work out a way to protect it in their absence.
(Disclosure:  Having spent years as a National Parks Service Volunteer I got to walk the walk, so to speak).

I am certain Fox News would be just as supportive of some OWS participants trespassing on government property.

..sorry, missed a not there.

Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2013, 10:52:30 AM
I am certain Fox News would be just as supportive of some OWS participants trespassing on government property.
..sorry, missed a not there.

That's right, I forgot we are trend-setters
(http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2011/11/tusla_pepper_spray_to_face2.jpg)
Just flushing the sinuses out of any possible brain-eating amoeba with some handy bear repellant.

(http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/56423/EC_131002_ohman620x413.jpg)

Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2013, 10:52:30 AM
I am certain Fox News would be just as supportive of some OWS participants trespassing on government property.

..sorry, missed a not there.

As of this point, none of the WWII vets have defecated on police cars, set things on fire, piled up garbage or left any needles laying around.  And to my knowledge they have treated the park and the park officials with the utmost respect.

Of course the day is young, they could all of a sudden strip down and start flinging poo.

 A little additional background on the WWII memorial closing.  Rep. Steven Palazzo of Miss. contacted the administration on Tuesday morning to clear the visit for the WWII vets and was denied.  He has noted "This is an open-air memorial that the public has 24/7 access to under normal circumstances — even when Park Service personnel aren't present."

In response the administration dispatched additional parks personnel, security and barricades in an attempt to bar the groups entry and create a media spectacle. 

When the same tour group was scheduled to also visit the Lincoln and MLK Memorials the same increase in security, barrycades, police tape, and personnel was dispatched.

It has obviously backfired.

Here is an interesting contrast.  There is no tour scheduled for the WWI Memorial this week.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7457/10056580864_aefd56022f.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 11:47:51 AM

Of course the day is young, they could all of a sudden strip down and start flinging poo.

Following the example of the freshman republican representatives.

Snatching Shutdown Defeat from the Jaws of Spending Victory

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2013/10/02/republicans-already-won-the-shutdown-when-it-comes-to-spending?src=usn_fb (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2013/10/02/republicans-already-won-the-shutdown-when-it-comes-to-spending?src=usn_fb)

QuoteThe ostensible reason House Republicans decided to shut down the government is that President Obama, not surprisingly, refuses to repeal, delay or gut Obamacare, his signature legislative achievement. And public opinion seems to be firmly on Obama's side: An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that neither a government shutdown nor a debt ceiling default, which is the next pressure point available to the GOP, should be used to derail Obamacare, even as voters remain split on the law itself. Poll after poll shows public disapproval of the GOP's tactics.

The tragedy of the situation, though, is that, in another sense, the GOP is fighting a battle it has already won, because Senate Democrats and President Obama are willing to enshrine into law the spending levels that House Republicans have been asking for since they seized the House majority in 2010.

As this graph from the Center for American Progress' Michael Linden (a former colleague of mine) and Harry Stein shows, the spending level in the Senate's continuing resolution – which was passed by the upper chamber and would keep the government open if the House would just adopt it – is not only below that enshrined in the 2011 debt ceiling deal, known as the Budget Control Act, but is barely more than that envisioned by the 2014 budget written by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the GOP's fiscal policy darling.

(http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/47983/Lindenchart.jpg)

QuoteIf House Republicans were actually concerned about government spending levels, they would be pocketing the Senate bill and running away with glee. If they were looking to negotiate a budget "compromise" when it comes to spending, they already have it and then some.

But if this shutdown debacle has proven anything, it's that the House Republicans are not actually concerned about spending. Instead, they're using a crisis to implement an agenda that they couldn't convince voters to support at the ballot box. (After all, if Americans hate Obamacare so much, as Republicans continually insist, it's a little odd that they re-elected, by a not particularly close margin, the fellow whose name is on the law.)

During previous battles over whether or not to shut down the government or default on the national debt, the GOP put forth proposals that, at least on the surface, were about spending. But not only are they currently attempting to use a shutdown to force through their health care policy, look at what they contemplated demanding for a debt ceiling increase this time around: repeal of some provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, Ryan's tax reform plan, blocking net neutrality, implementing the bad joke known as the REINS Act, tossing aside a bevy of environmental protections and means testing Medicare. Oh, and some Republicans wanted an anti-contraception provision added to the bill that would prevent a shutdown, because contraception and funding the government have so very much to do with each other.

These are not the actions of a party concerned with spending levels, even though that's what a government shutdown is technically all about.

So yes, it is entirely likely that, in the end, Republicans will be forced to cave and accept a re-opening of the government that does not involve gutting Obamacare (save for maybe a face-saving concession from the Democrats, such as repealing a tax on medical devices that everyone seems to hate). And they will, if the polls are any indication, be "blamed" for causing the shutdown and lose some of whatever popularity they have left.

But in the grander sense, they already pulled a fast one by getting Senate Democrats to almost unthinkingly accept levels of government spending much closer to the House's ideal plan than to Obama's budget; that funding level, if it becomes the baseline for future negotiations, will undermine important investments in education and science for years to come. If only Republicans had the sense to know when they've already won, the government could open back up.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 01, 2013, 08:55:42 AM
It seems that the house is actually acting on behalf of the people they represent instead of the interests of government.  

Total BS. If it were that simple, we would never pay any tax or enter into any war.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
As of this point, none of the WWII vets have defecated on police cars, set things on fire, piled up garbage or left any needles laying around.  And to my knowledge they have treated the park and the park officials with the utmost respect.

Did those folks in downtown Tulsa poop on police cars, or do you really not understand that there are multiple people in the world who are each individually responsible for their actions?

BTW, when less than 30% of the population supports your actions now and your party lost the last election, which was largely a referendum on Obamacare, in which election your party's Presidential candidate lost and your opponents received more votes than you in the House, you can't really claim to be doing the people's work. Oh, and don't forget that the radicals in the House aren't even the majority. Unless you think Republicans are so special they should just run everything no matter who the people actually elect.

Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2013, 12:49:39 PM
Did those folks in downtown Tulsa poop on police cars, or do you really not understand that there are multiple people in the world who are each individually responsible for their actions?

BTW, when less than 30% of the population supports your actions now and your party lost the last election, which was largely a referendum on Obamacare, in which election your party's Presidential candidate lost and your opponents received more votes than you in the House, you can't really claim to be doing the people's work. Oh, and don't forget that the radicals in the House aren't even the majority. Unless you think Republicans are so special they should just run everything no matter who the people actually elect.

If the Senate bill were allowed to be voted on, there are REPUBLICAN estimates it would pass by more than 100 votes. But the Tea Party won't allow a vote.

A nice explanation of how ridiculous the radicals' position on this is:

http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2013/10/01/american-healthcare-was-already-socialized-by-reagan-were-just-fighting-about-how-to-pay-for-it/

Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2013, 12:49:39 PM
Did those folks in downtown Tulsa poop on police cars, or do you really not understand that there are multiple people in the world who are each individually responsible for their actions?

BTW, when less than 30% of the population supports your actions now and your party lost the last election, which was largely a referendum on Obamacare, in which election your party's Presidential candidate lost and your opponents received more votes than you in the House, you can't really claim to be doing the people's work. Oh, and don't forget that the radicals in the House aren't even the majority. Unless you think Republicans are so special they should just run everything no matter who the people actually elect.

So, let me break this apart so that we can follow.

QuoteDid those folks in downtown Tulsa poop on police cars, or do you really not understand that there are multiple people in the world who are each individually responsible for their actions?

Had you indicated it was the tulsa group you were commenting on, I would have focused on that group rather than generalizing. As for the Tulsa Occupiers led by local self proclaimed communist leader Daniel Lee, only a small proportion of the group was arrested that night in November of 2011.  40 left when the police announced that curfew was approaching.  About 10 remained, locking arms and refusing to leave.  According to the posted minutes from their previous evenings meeting, they had prepared to violate the law, and even anticipated being pepper sprayed. They were booked on violation of curfew and resisting arrest.  3 of the 10 had outstanding warrants.  So basically the vast majority of Tulsa OWS protesters were fine law abiding citizens.

QuoteBTW, when less than 30% of the population supports your actions now and your party lost the last election, which was largely a referendum on Obamacare, in which election your party's Presidential candidate lost and your opponents received more votes than you in the House, you can't really claim to be doing the people's work. Oh, and don't forget that the radicals in the House aren't even the majority. Unless you think Republicans are so special they should just run everything no matter who the people actually elect.

This door was opened when the Senate refused to pass a budget. . .again! The Senate delivered this authority to the House.  If the American people are against this action (and they are by a 75% majority) it will cause the house to shift those seats, but not until the next election.  The wiring has been crossed because of a failure of leadership. The constitutional responsibility of the Senate is to pass a budget and deliver it to the President for signature.  Because they did not, they forfeit a portion of their power.  Simple.

Now, who is to blame.  Both parties are to blame, and in the absence of leadership from the White House, both parties will continue to present this spectacle.  I remember Newt and Bill coming out of furious negations in the midst of a government shutdown with a stack of paper and an agreement, they were red-faced and exhausted, but that collaboration led to Clinton signing a Balanced Budget the next year.  Perhaps if the current President spent more time off the golf course working with both parties, we wouldn't' be here.
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/30/sawh970805098210_9551797_vert-c6adee40b3f82653cfcb0e51c928a83133f0b1b7-s6-c30.jpg)

Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
A nice explanation of how ridiculous the radicals' position on this is:

http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2013/10/01/american-healthcare-was-already-socialized-by-reagan-were-just-fighting-about-how-to-pay-for-it/

Yep.  But you will never get an RWRE to understand it, let alone accept the reality.

Good news!  It's working!

BREAKING: Obama Agrees To a Meeting

WASHINGTON — A White House official says President Barack Obama has invited congressional leaders to the White House Wednesday, when he returns from the golf course, for a meeting on the government shutdown.

The official says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been invited to the meeting. The official says Obama will urge the House to pass a spending bill to allow the government to reopen.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 01:31:01 PM
Good news!  It's working!

BREAKING: Obama Agrees To a Meeting

WASHINGTON — A White House official says President Barack Obama has invited congressional leaders to the White House Wednesday, when he returns from the golf course, for a meeting on the government shutdown.

The official says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been invited to the meeting. The official says Obama will urge the House to pass a spending bill to allow the government to reopen.

And the House will say no.  And on it goes.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
the absence of leadership from the White House

Keep trying this.  Maybe someone will eventually drink enough to agree.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 02, 2013, 01:32:24 PM
And the House will say no.  And on it goes.

I don't think the Bridenstiners will allow it.

Quote from: Townsend on October 02, 2013, 01:33:19 PM
Keep trying this.  Maybe someone will eventually drink enough to agree.

That's typically how Washington works.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
This door was opened when the Senate refused to pass a budget. . .again! [/img]

The Senate did pass a budget. IN APRIL. Ever since then Senate Republicans have blocked Reid from forming a conference committee to resolve differences with the House Budget.

The Senate this week has been passing daily budget continuing resolutions but the house won't even let the bills be voted on. 

Why won't House Republican leadership even let the bill come up for a vote? Because it would pass.

Quote from: swake on October 02, 2013, 01:40:36 PM
The Senate did pass a budget. IN APRIL. Ever since then Senate Republicans have blocked Reid from forming a conference committee to resolve differences with the House Budget.

The Senate this week has been passing daily budget continuing resolutions but the house won't even let the bills be voted on.  

Why won't House Republican leadership even let the bill come up for a vote? Because it would pass.

That was not a serious budget. Amendments in the bill necessary to secure it's passage included the allowance for sales taxes on Internet purchases, for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the repeal of the medical devices tax in Obamacare.  It also included nearly a $1 trillion in new tax hikes. It was not a serious bill, it was simply a way to say "see we passed a budget."  50-49 vote with many of the most prominent supporters of the president saying it would never achieve presidential signature, and bringing it to a vote in the House would likely cost Democrats seats in both the House and Senate.

It was no better than the president's budget that couldn't get a single vote from anyone in his own party.  

Members of Oklahoma's finest generation will be going too.  God Bless!

http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/oklahoma-wwii-vets-still-going-dc-despite-shutdown/nbDLR/
(http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/400/img/photos/2013/09/18/98/a3/hf_women.JPG)

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 01:59:37 PM
That was not a serious budget.

Less serious than 42 attempts to repeal a law?

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 02:02:26 PM
Members of Oklahoma's finest generation will be going too.  God Bless!

Maybe Bridenstiners will see they're just making people angry.

Quote from: Townsend on October 02, 2013, 02:02:49 PM
Less serious than 42 attempts to repeal a law?

Likely to be hundreds of attempts over the next four years, unless we see some leadership.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 02:04:20 PM
Likely to be hundreds of attempts over the next four years, unless we see some leadership.

Boehner's been giving it his best.  It's just not working.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 01:59:37 PM
That was not a serious budget. Amendments in the bill necessary to secure it's passage included the allowance for sales taxes on Internet purchases, for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the repeal of the medical devices tax in Obamacare.  It also included nearly a $1 trillion in new tax hikes. It was not a serious bill, it was simply a way to say "see we passed a budget."  50-49 vote with many of the most prominent supporters of the president saying it would never achieve presidential signature, and bringing it to a vote in the House would likely cost Democrats seats in both the House and Senate.

It was no better than the president's budget that couldn't get a single vote from anyone in his own party.  

That's why you have the conference committee, to work out differences to the point there's a bill both sides can pass. But that's never going to happen with Tea Party stance that they will never compromise. Now they won't let bills that they don't agree with to even be voted on. It's madness.

US News FB post:

QuoteHigh-profile Wall Street CEOs are meeting at the White House today, something that could test corporate America's ability to resolve the impasse on the federal debt and government shutdown by influencing House Republicans and countering tea party hardliners.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/02/obama-meets-with-wall-street-ceos-on-shutdown-impasse?src=usn_fb (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/02/obama-meets-with-wall-street-ceos-on-shutdown-impasse?src=usn_fb)

Will it work?  Standing by...

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 01:59:37 PM
That was not a serious budget. Amendments in the bill necessary to secure it's passage included the allowance for sales taxes on Internet purchases, for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the repeal of the medical devices tax in Obamacare.  It also included nearly a $1 trillion in new tax hikes. It was not a serious bill, it was simply a way to say "see we passed a budget."  50-49 vote with many of the most prominent supporters of the president saying it would never achieve presidential signature, and bringing it to a vote in the House would likely cost Democrats seats in both the House and Senate.

It was no better than the president's budget that couldn't get a single vote from anyone in his own party.  

And even supposing you are right about any of those points - they all add up to still light years more serious than Boner & Buds with their "de-fund" amendment.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 02, 2013, 02:18:00 PM

And even supposing you are right about any of those points - they all add up to still light years more serious than Boner & Buds with their "de-fund" amendment.

My favorite nickname for the Speaker sofar this crisis?

"The Weeping Cheeto".

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
Both parties are to blame, and in the absence of leadership from the White House, both parties will continue to present this spectacle.

Funny that you blame the house of Congress that passed a budget and has asked for a conference committee more than 15 times since March, which Boehner has refused, for lack of leadership and unwillingness to negotiate. A majority of the House, the Senate, and the President all agree on the continuing resolution already passed by the Senate. Boehner and his group of cry babies are the only ones keeping this mess going, and sadly, they're the only ones who can fix it since Boehner is the one who gets to decide what the House gets to vote on.

I'm not really sure where your criticism of Obama comes from on this, either. He's not the one who is literally giddy with excitement over having the government shut down. He has led a majority of the Senate and House to an agreement. It is only the hard core radicals, enabled by Boehner's fear for his job should he let the will of the majority be done that is standing in the way.

Gets a little more disgusting.
WWII Memorial, Carol Johnson w/the Park Service says they were "excepted from furlough" and told to close the site by White House.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/10058978053_d566495c6f.jpg)

Yes, it is disgusting that things close. ..what?

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 12:07:53 PM
A little additional background on the WWII memorial closing.  Rep. Steven Palazzo of Miss. contacted the administration on Tuesday morning to clear the visit for the WWII vets and was denied. 

You dont call the public library to order pizza from Mazios, so why would you call the White House to arrange a tour at a park?
That's NPS domain, and they have this really big book of rules and procedures that predates "the administration"

Michele Bachmann, meanwhile, has been photobombing the media with pictures of herself ripping up caution tape from the WWII memorial, as if to say the Tea Party is coming to the rescue of these poor vets being dissed by "the administration"  The GOP is the victim, dont you know...

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
Gets a little more disgusting.
WWII Memorial, Carol Johnson w/the Park Service says they were "excepted from furlough" and told to close the site by White House.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/10058978053_d566495c6f.jpg)

A perfect example of a head fake.  Complete with the pre-requisite Gass blue fontification!

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
Gets a little more disgusting.
WWII Memorial, Carol Johnson w/the Park Service says they were "excepted from furlough" and told to close the site by White House.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/10058978053_d566495c6f.jpg)

Apparently there is a law from 1870, the Anti Deficiency Act, that specifically prohibits:

Quote
accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.

So the only thing the federal government can do, by law, is protect these monuments and parks. They cannot provide any other services related to them. Thus the security and the barriers. The penalties for violation are:

Quote
Federal employees who violate the Antideficiency Act are subject to two types of sanctions: administrative and penal. Employees may be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office. In addition, employees may also be subject to fines, imprisonment, or both.

http://www.gao.gov/legal/lawresources/antideficiencybackground.html

In 1995, Bill Clinton did not order the closing of the open air monuments and parks. The shutdown only served to furlough staff in federal buildings and parks.  Public spaces remained open to the public.  This is theater, and not good theater. 

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 03:48:26 PM
This is theater, and not good theater. 

(http://www.wbez.org/system/files/styles/original_image/llo/insert-images/ted%20cruz%20AP.jpg)

Quote
the Chamber of Commerce has sent a letter to Congress signed by about 250 business groups urging no shutdown and warning that a debt ceiling crisis could lead to an economic disaster. They say that the policy disputes over health care and spending that are separating Democrats and Republicans should be debated later.

http://www.boston.com/2013/10/02/some-gop-not-heeding-old-big-business-allies/lQFNhick3DpRCdzeVMhFMM/story.html

Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2013, 03:48:26 PM
In 1995, Bill Clinton did not order the closing of the open air monuments and parks. The shutdown only served to furlough staff in federal buildings and parks.  Public spaces remained open to the public.  This is theater, and not good theater.  

That was pre-911...well before all of the security measures were installed around these monuments.

But aren't the janitors, groundskeepers, trash collectors and other staff that cleans up after the public off work?

Quote from: carltonplace on October 03, 2013, 09:00:52 AM
That was pre-911...well before all of the security measures were installed around these monuments.

But aren't the janitors, groundskeepers, trash collectors and other staff that cleans up after the public off work?

(http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/october2013/031013mount1.jpg)
They installed barrycades at Mt. Vernon this morning, but they have since been taken down, when the administration learned that Mt. Vernon is private.  In fact it prompted a rather humorous post on their website. http://www.mountvernon.org/

There are also apparently mounted park police at the WWII memorial today and the NPS has stationed officers along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal that runs 184 miles from Washington, D.C. to Cumberland, Maryland to make sure nobody uses the bike paths (that are typically unmanned by parks personnel).

Just like with Sequesterpocolips, the president is attempting to harm the public to show illustrate the necessity of "non-essential" (their word) government services.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2824/10069844356_1eaaaf7698.jpg)

Newt Gingrich, love him or loathe him (I happen to be on the loathe side), was on Leno last night.

He pointed out a government shut-down is not a "crisis", but it's making for good news hits so it's a "big deal" right now.  Boehner is referred to as a "terrorist" for allowing this to happen, but I don't ever recall Tip O'neill being called a "terrorist" when government shut down 12 times while he was the SOTH.

QuoteThe government shut down on October 1 for the 18th time since 1976, after the House and Senate could not agree on a resolution to fund it. Democrats have accused Republicans of negotiating with "a bomb strapped to their chest" and putting "a gun to everybody's head," as if it were an anomalous development in the modern political era for Congress to seek to extract policy concessions from the White House by withholding spending authorization. The resulting shutdown, Democrats now suggest, is as unprecedented as it is deplorable. Or, in the words of one esteemed liberal, it is "the end result of a 50-year GOP push to make govt = welfare and welfare = black people."

Historically speaking, it is rather remarkable that Washington hasn't experienced a government shutdown in nearly two decades. The shutdowns of the mid 1990s have been the subject of much debate. Beyond that, however, the chattering class appears to suffer from a short memory, as it often does.

At this point in Ronald Reagan's second term, for example, the government had already shut down six times, for a total of twelve days, as a result of failed budget negotiations between the White House, a Republican Senate, and House Democrats under the leadership of Speaker Tip O'Neill (D., Mass.) — precisely the opposite of the political dynamic that exists today. Former O'Neill staffer and MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews has written an entire book extolling that era as a time "when politics worked." (You can probably guess how he feels about the current situation.)

O'Neill presided over a total of seven government shutdowns under Reagan, and five during the Jimmy Carter administration, meaning that he played a role in precisely two-thirds of all the government shutdowns since the modern budgeting process has been in place. Representative Raul Labrador (R., Idaho) pointed this out to Matthews on Meet the Press on Sunday, noting that O'Neill was never called a terrorist for shutting the government down over budget negotiations. Matthews didn't care for the reminder and even questioned the source of Labrador's claim; it was the Washington Post.

Interestingly, nearly all of the shutdowns that took place during the Carter administration, when Democrats also controlled the Senate under Senate majority leader Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), were the result of disagreements over abortion policy, and lasted more than ten days on average. In several instances between 1977 and 1979, the Democratic House resisted the Democratic Senate's efforts to expand the number of cases for which federal funds, via Medicaid, could be used to pay for abortion. The government partially shut down three times for a total of 28 days between September and December 1977 as lawmakers negotiated a compromise on the issue, although it would be revisited several times during subsequent shutdowns.

The shutdowns of the Reagan-O'Neill era, on the other hand, were more budget-focused, and the disputes they involved were over a wider range of policies. They also took less time to resolve. The first such shutdown occurred in November 1981, less than a year into Reagan's first term. Reagan had demanded at least $4 billion in domestic-spending cuts, and when Congress did not oblige, he vetoed a spending package, triggering a government shutdown. Technically, the shutdown lasted only a few hours, until Congress approved a three-week spending resolution to give lawmakers time to negotiate a long-term deal.

The government briefly shut down twice the following year, the first time because the House simply failed to pass an agreed-on spending bill before funding expired. According to the New York Times, party leaders missed the deadline in order to attend "major social events," which included a barbeque at the White House and a high-dollar Democratic fundraiser. Reagan ultimately accepted a funding agreement even though it called for higher levels of spending than he would have liked.

Months later, the government shut down for several days in part over the House's refusal to fund an intercontinental-missile program that Reagan supported. The House also wanted more than $5 billion in funding for public-works projects, which Reagan had threatened to veto. In the end, the public-works funding was scrapped, but so was funding for the missile program.

Another shutdown occurred in November 1983 after House Democrats requested an additional $1 billion in funding for education and reduced spending on defense and foreign aid. Less than a year later, the government shut down after the House, as well as the Senate, sought to tie a number of extraneous measures, opposed by Reagan, to a resolution funding the government. That standoff resulted in a three-day continuing resolution to buy time for further negotiation, but the government shut down again when lawmakers failed to reach an agreement.

The final shutdown of O'Neill's political career was in October 1986. House Democrats had picked fights with Reagan on a number of issues, including labor, energy, and welfare policy. The differences between the two sides weren't resolved in time to prevent a shutdown, which lasted about a day, and ended when Democrats relinquished many of their demands.

Of course, the current scenario is unique given the controversy surrounding Obamacare — legislation of historical scope that was passed in partisan fashion and remains unpopular, notwithstanding the reelection of its namesake. Perhaps if the situation were reversed, House Democrats would never be so irresponsible as to allow the government to shut down. History suggests otherwise.

— Andrew Stiles is a political reporter for National Review Online.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 09:43:27 AM
Newt Gingrich, love him or loathe him (I happen to be on the loathe side), was on Leno last night.

He pointed out a government shut-down is not a "crisis", but it's making for good news hits so it's a "big deal" right now.  Boehner is referred to as a "terrorist" for allowing this to happen, but I don't ever recall Tip O'neill being called a "terrorist" when government shut down 12 times while he was the SOTH.

I've never heard the crazies call the President any names...

It might be more of the issue that those crazies are now controlling the House...not that the "big deal" is happening.

These guys want their names to stay in front of the people who fall for their crap so they can get elected again.

Michelle Bachman had support.  I shouldn't have to point out anything else.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 09:43:27 AM
Newt Gingrich, love him or loathe him (I happen to be on the loathe side), was on Leno last night.

He pointed out a government shut-down is not a "crisis", but it's making for good news hits so it's a "big deal" right now.  Boehner is referred to as a "terrorist" for allowing this to happen, but I don't ever recall Tip O'neill being called a "terrorist" when government shut down 12 times while he was the SOTH.

No, we are not in crisis mode yet, this is very bad, but not yet a crisis. The crisis starts October 17th.

President Obama is now attempting to throw the financial markets into a panic, but this too is failing to work for him.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/03/obama-to-investors-please-panic-at-least-a-little-bit/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Asked in his CNBC interview Wednesday  whether Wall Street is right to remain calm over the standoff, Mr. Obama replied: "No."

"I think this time's different," he said. "I think they should be concerned....

. . .and this morning the National Journal sums it up perfectly.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/who-broke-washington/barack-obama-a-divider-not-a-uniter-20131003

Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 09:43:27 AM
Tip O'neill being called a "terrorist" when government shut down 12 times while he was the SOTH.

Tip O'neill didn't shut down the government because he didn't like a law that had been passed by a previous Congress. The Senate Majority leader did a couple of times, though, over Medicaid funding for abortions in limited cases. You'll note that even that was actually about money. Repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit.

Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 10:29:36 AM
Repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit.

. . .and driving my car saves gas!

(http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/44xxx/44176-land-ACA.png)

Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 10:09:46 AM
President Obama is now attempting to throw the financial markets into a panic, but this too is failing to work for him.

It's not Obama, again I already posted this. But the United States Chamber and 250 other business groups are leading the charge against the shut down and possible failure to raise the debt ceiling.

Quote
the Chamber of Commerce has sent a letter to Congress signed by about 250 business groups urging no shutdown and warning that a debt ceiling crisis could lead to an economic disaster. They say that the policy disputes over health care and spending that are separating Democrats and Republicans should be debated later.

http://www.boston.com/2013/10/02/some-gop-not-heeding-old-big-business-allies/lQFNhick3DpRCdzeVMhFMM/story.html

Gaspar, from the page you got that image from (or your source got it from):

Quote
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see

Pay attention next time.

Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 10:53:44 AM
Gaspar, from the page you got that image from (or your source got it from):

Pay attention next time.

The second time I've pointed this out today...

Remember who you're asking that of.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 10:48:26 AM
. . .and driving my car saves gas!

(http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/44xxx/44176-land-ACA.png)

Yeah, about that. it's only part of the full story and I think you know that. Why are you being dishonest Gasp?

From the CBO about these projections:

Quote
In its May 2013 baseline projections, CBO projected that the insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act would have a net cost to the federal government of $1,363 billion over the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023. (The ACA includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce federal budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next decade.)

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44465

Quote from: swake on October 03, 2013, 10:59:24 AM
Yeah, about that. it's only part of the full story and I think you know that. Why are you being dishonest Gasp?

From the CBO about these projections:http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44465

Historically has that ever happened with a government program?

Do you honestly believe that ACA will decrease deficits?

Quote from: swake on October 03, 2013, 10:59:24 AM
Yeah, about that. it's only part of the full story and I think you know that. Why are you being dishonest Gasp?

Because Obama must destroy America.  We get it, Gasp.

So your facts turn out not to be facts, but that doesn't matter because it's truthy? Why do you even bother posting?

Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 01:10:22 PM
Why do you even bother posting?

Same reason Chet's a wanker...

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-mU/THSVn4fRh2I/AAAAAAAATk8/fldyGqH_eks/s400/weird_science_movie_chet.jpg)

Shots fired outside the DC Capital building.

I'm guessing Cruz has lost his s___.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1378701_10151943218335329_1813558511_n.jpg)

Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 01:22:23 PM
Same reason Chet's a wanker...

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-mU/THSVn4fRh2I/AAAAAAAATk8/fldyGqH_eks/s400/weird_science_movie_chet.jpg)

I think Chet is Ted Cruz...Or should I say Rafael Cruz?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Ted_Cruz%2C_official_portrait%2C_113th_Congress.jpg/480px-Ted_Cruz%2C_official_portrait%2C_113th_Congress.jpg)

Warren Meyer of Phoenix, AZ, is owner and president of Recreation Resource Management, Inc. RRM employs about 400-500 camp workers and managers across about a dozen states. It is one of a handful of companies that have been managing national parks and campgrounds as tenants for years, through previous government shutdowns including the last one in 1995-1996. Those previous shutdowns never closed any of the parks managed in this way, but he has been ordered to close. http://camprrm.com/

The campgrounds are self-sufficient and receive no federal funding. No government employees staff or manage the parks. The management companies pay the National Park Service out of the funds they generate from operating the thousands of campgrounds. So the reason for the shutdown is puzzling to Meyer.

Today, he sent a letter to both of his senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, asking for help to keep his parks open.

"My company, based in North Phoenix, operates nearly over 100 US Forest Service campgrounds and day use areas under concession contract. Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during the government shutdown. This makes total sense, since our operations are self-sufficient (we are fully funded by user fees at the gate), we get no federal funds, we employ no government workers on these sites, and we actually pay rent into the Treasury."

Notice that last part. The parks not only do not cost the taxpayers any money, they pay funds into the Treasury out of the fees park users pay. Shutting them down will cost the taxpayers money.

How much? Meyer says his parks generate hundreds of thousands of dollars per week. Multiply that across his competitors and the Treasury could lose a few million dollars, in what is essentially free money to the government, over the course of the shutdown.

Which, as Meyer points out, is unnecessary, as these management companies are not revenue losers, but revenue generators for the Treasury.

He writes

However, today, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people "above the department", which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally close all private operations. I can only assume their intention is to artificially increase the cost of the shutdown as some sort of political ploy.

The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 02:12:08 PM
Warren Meyer of Phoenix, AZ, is owner and president of Recreation Resource Management, \

Here's his blog:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html)

Guess he should contact the tea party and tell them to let the house vote that bill...vote that bill...vote that bill!

Otherwise he'll need to heed the contract he signed.

Come hither and give heed.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 02:12:08 PM
The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation.

The point of the shutdown is to not illegally continue activities for which Congress has not appropriated funds. Like it not, the parks are subject to appropriations, and thus do not have authority to operate. Interesting that you expect Obama to violate the Constitution because it would be convenient. I'll remember that next time you argue that Obama should not unilaterally ignore the debt ceiling.

There have been Supreme Court cases on precisely this point, that federal agencies may not use revenue like user fees or contract revenue in lieu of a Congressional appropriation absent specific authorization by Congress, and then only for the Congressionally authorized purposes.

Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 02:54:21 PM
The point of the shutdown is to not illegally continue activities for which Congress has not appropriated funds. Like it not, the parks are subject to appropriations, and thus do not have authority to operate. Interesting that you expect Obama to violate the Constitution because it would be convenient. I'll remember that next time you argue that Obama should not unilaterally ignore the debt ceiling.

There have been Supreme Court cases on precisely this point, that federal agencies may not use revenue like user fees or contract revenue in lieu of a Congressional appropriation absent specific authorization by Congress, and then only for the Congressionally authorized purposes.

So. . .If I own oil leases on federal lands, shouldn't the government come shut me down?  If not, are they in violation?

Congress is not appropriating funds for visitors to parks, monuments, and other public spaces.  They are appropriating funds for the maintenance and upkeep of those elements and the concessions in place.  

It would naturally follow that the dispatch of additional personnel and equipment above and beyond normal staff levels for these parks, monuments, and public spaces, would constitute a requirement of the appropriation or diversion of funds in the midst of a federal shutdown.  Instead of closing the information booths, and not emptying the trash cans, the president ADDED personnel and equipment so as to cause public spectacle.  There was no other possible motivation. 

If indeed there exists some kind of constitutional violation, as you imply, to allow any commerce or convention on federal property during a government shutdown, than they are in clear violation of your imaginary constitutional requirement by allowing gas and oil leases to operate or any leased entity for that matter.

Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 02:20:05 PM
Here's his blog:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html)

Guess he should contact the tea party and tell them to let the house vote that bill...vote that bill...vote that bill!

Otherwise he'll need to heed the contract he signed.

Come hither and give heed.

Here's the salient point you keep missing:  The administration is engaging in clear chicanery not pulled by previous administrations during the prior 17 shutdowns since 1976.  These are executive branch-level decisions which are "closing" parks which don't even require federal funding for their operation.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 03:50:09 PM
Here's the salient point you keep missing:  The administration is engaging in clear chicanery not pulled by previous administrations during the prior 17 shutdowns since 1976.  These are executive branch-level decisions which are "closing" parks which don't even require federal funding for their operation.

As long as the locations require 0 security and 0 maintenance (emptying trash) I agree. Is this the case at these monuments? You need security anyway to keep people out.  Not sure it works.  

Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 03:50:09 PM
Here's the salient point you keep missing:  The administration is engaging in clear chicanery not pulled by previous administrations during the prior 17 shutdowns since 1976.  These are executive branch-level decisions which are "closing" parks which don't even require federal funding for their operation.

No, what we're missing is all these folks are stationing themselves for sound bites and news shows.  Taking "get re-elected" pills.

We keep thinking people are doing things for or against us.  They're not.  They're doing things for the money for their next candidacy.

We're too gullible as a general populous.

Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
No, what we're missing is all these folks are stationing themselves for sound bites and news shows.  Taking "get re-elected" pills.

We keep thinking people are doing things for or against us.  They're not.  They're doing things for the money for their next candidacy.

We're too gullible as a general populous.

Don't think Warren Meyer was trying to get a sound byte.  I think he was trying to keep his business open.
Don't think Francis Buchanan, who just celebrated his 87th birthday far from the fox hole in woods of Bastogne that he used to call home 68 years ago, was there for political reasons.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 04:35:32 PM
Don't think Warren Meyer was trying to get a sound byte.  I think he was trying to keep his business open.
Don't think Francis Buchanan, who just celebrated his 87th birthday far from the fox hole in woods of Bastogne that he used to call home 68 years ago, was there for political reasons.

I didn't realize they were running for re-election.

Are they running for re-election?

(http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/56516/EC_131003_horsey620x413.jpg)

Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 04:41:41 PM
(http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/56516/EC_131003_horsey620x413.jpg)

Uncanny how one cartoon sums up the whole argument.

Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
No, what we're missing is all these folks are stationing themselves for sound bites and news shows.  Taking "get re-elected" pills.

We keep thinking people are doing things for or against us.  They're not.  They're doing things for the money for their next candidacy.

We're too gullible as a general populous.

You've been making it sound like blame falls soley on the shoulders of Tea Party members when in reality Dims in the legislature are doing nothing to help the situation by refusing to even agree on specific funding measures without ties to de-funding Obamacare or getting rid of the medical appliance tax.  Obama and his henchmen are making sure that the shut-down is visible as possible by being malicious with cuts which are simply not necessary.  Again, not something done by Clinton, Reagan, or Carter when it happened in their administrations.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 05:51:04 PM
You've been making it sound like blame falls soley on the shoulders of Tea Party members when in reality Dims in the legislature are doing nothing to help the situation by refusing to even agree on specific funding measures without ties to de-funding Obamacare or getting rid of the medical appliance tax.  Obama and his henchmen are making sure that the shut-down is visible as possible by being malicious with cuts which are simply not necessary.  Again, not something done by Clinton, Reagan, or Carter when it happened in their administrations.

You haven't been paying attention again...there have been literally trillions in concessions (over ten years as they are so fond of saying) made by the Democrats during Obama's term.  Really - recover faster!

Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 05:51:04 PM
You've been making it sound like blame falls soley on the shoulders of Tea Party member....snip

If the shoe fits.  Actually, mainly more on the shoulders of Rafael Cruz-McCarthy, the Calgary Cowboy.

When you get guys like Grover Norquist to say things about Cruz like "He pushed Republicans in to traffic and then wandered away", then that's saying something.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 03:16:44 PM
So. . .If I own oil leases on federal lands, shouldn't the government come shut me down?  If not, are they in violation?

Congress is not appropriating funds for visitors to parks, monuments, and other public spaces.  They are appropriating funds for the maintenance and upkeep of those elements and the concessions in place.  

It would naturally follow that the dispatch of additional personnel and equipment above and beyond normal staff levels for these parks, monuments, and public spaces, would constitute a requirement of the appropriation or diversion of funds in the midst of a federal shutdown.  Instead of closing the information booths, and not emptying the trash cans, the president ADDED personnel and equipment so as to cause public spectacle.  There was no other possible motivation. 

If indeed there exists some kind of constitutional violation, as you imply, to allow any commerce or convention on federal property during a government shutdown, than they are in clear violation of your imaginary constitutional requirement by allowing gas and oil leases to operate or any leased entity for that matter.

Yes, if you take what I said and add a bunch of BS to it, you can create and knock down a straw man. Such talent!

First, let's correct a misunderstanding. Congress has not in fact appropriated money for maintenance and upkeep of the parks (aside possibly from some multi-year capital appropriations), which is why employees deemed essential are working without pay. Sorry you don't like that there are consequences to this failure.

Secondly, the violation is not allowing people onto federal lands, it is allowing employees to perform nonessential duties. The federal government does not operate wells, private companies operating with their own funds do. The federal government does operate parks.

Thirdly, I'm not sure why you think the power of the purse is some obscure Constitutional provision. I seem to recall you being strongly in favor of Congress using it to prevent Obama from closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. The plain words of the document are quite clear (and it is long settled law) that only Congress has the power to authorize spending.

Conan, no concessions, really? The continuing resolution passed by the Senate lopped about $300 billion off the President's budget request, bringing it within a few tens of billions of Paul freakin' Ryan's budget and you're saying the Democrats made no concessions. Get real.

Also, require is different than use. Many things in this country are jointly paid for by federal and state governments. If the federal money goes away the state can't pretend it didn't. It is, of course, up to them whether to assume 100% of the responsibility presuming they actually operate the park or whatever. That assumes that they already have the legal right to operate it, of course. If not, there's no money to negotiate a new agreement.

Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2013, 06:31:15 PM
Yes, if you take what I said and add a bunch of BS to it, you can create and knock down a straw man. Such talent!

First, let's correct a misunderstanding. Congress has not in fact appropriated money for maintenance and upkeep of the parks (aside possibly from some multi-year capital appropriations), which is why employees deemed essential are working without pay. Sorry you don't like that there are consequences to this failure.

Secondly, the violation is not allowing people onto federal lands, it is allowing employees to perform nonessential duties. The federal government does not operate wells, private companies operating with their own funds do. The federal government does operate parks.

Thirdly, I'm not sure why you think the power of the purse is some obscure Constitutional provision. I seem to recall you being strongly in favor of Congress using it to prevent Obama from closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. The plain words of the document are quite clear (and it is long settled law) that only Congress has the power to authorize spending.

Conan, no concessions, really? The continuing resolution passed by the Senate lopped about $300 billion off the President's budget request, bringing it within a few tens of billions of Paul freakin' Ryan's budget and you're saying the Democrats made no concessions. Get real.

Also, require is different than use. Many things in this country are jointly paid for by federal and state governments. If the federal money goes away the state can't pretend it didn't. It is, of course, up to them whether to assume 100% of the responsibility presuming they actually operate the park or whatever. That assumes that they already have the legal right to operate it, of course. If not, there's no money to negotiate a new agreement.

Here's a real winner from Texas:

Their Congressman Randy Neugebauer



What a d-bag.  All for a photo-op

Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 01:46:14 PM
Shots fired outside the DC Capital building.

I'm guessing Cruz has lost his s___.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1378701_10151943218335329_1813558511_n.jpg)

QuoteAt the beginning of it all, Oregon residents B.J. and Susan Campbell saw a black sedan driven by a woman heading west on Pennsylvania, into a security checkpoint at 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. The driver went about 20 yards, B.J. Campbell said, before rapidly turning the car around at the concrete security barriers.

"The Secret Service guy was just having a cow," B.J. Campbell said. "Yelling at her and banging on the car." The Secret Service officers pulled a black metal gate into her path and she slowed to try to go around it. Then the agent moved the gate in front of her again.

At that point "she just gunned it," B.J. Campbell said. "She ran the barricade down and the guy; knocked him up onto her hood. The whole encounter lasted about 20 seconds, he said.
Another witness said the man was an off-duty officer in plain clothes holding a lunch cooler in his hand.
Two officers recieved minor injuries after striking secirity barriers with their vehicles.

Well if this is true, the shutdown may have claimed a victim, if this tourist freaked out thinking she was being carjacked.

A tourist visiting from Portland, Ore., said he saw the black car drive past White House security. Officers began "banging on the car, yelling at her," Campbell told TIME. One tried to use a bicycle rack to box in the vehicle, but the car spun around and rammed into the rack and hit the officer, who was not wearing a uniform.
http://nation.time.com/2013/10/03/gunshots-fired-at-u-s-capitol/

She had her baby in the car.  Damn.

People need to calm down. The stupid rhetoric being used to further careers and movements (has) and will cost lives. I am hearing really bs stuff from regular everyday workers about guns, bullets, fuel prices, mortgage rates, medical care, flu vaccines, etc. that have long since been explained or debunked, now resurfacing as anti-govt, anti-Obama conspiracies.

When I explain to them how this is politics being played by professionals at a very high level, they seem unfazed. Sort of how Gas ignores stuff that doesn't fit his schema.

I am most amused by those who point out that previous players didn't respond with such fervor as the "administration" has. Yeah, well, they stepped up this time and are playing at the same intensity as their opposition. And that is worthy of criticism? Gas, your people are like those crowds that gather below a jumper contemplating suicide from a high rise yelling...."JUMP, JUMP, JUMP"

All this over opponents of a health care law they originally devised. Shameful.

My friend Piper's very clever take on the situation.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
My friend Piper's very cleaver take on the situation.

Cleaver?

Quote from: swake on October 04, 2013, 03:01:32 PM
Cleaver?

That's what my phone wanted to say.  ;D

New hope for debt deal, but not for shutdown

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politics/government-shutdown-main/index.html?sr=fb100413shutdowngopdem4p (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politics/government-shutdown-main/index.html?sr=fb100413shutdowngopdem4p)

QuoteWashington (CNN) -- Grandstanding rhetoric abounded but little tangible progress was evident on Friday, the fourth day of a government shutdown both Republicans and Democrats say they don't want but claim they are unable to stop.

"This isn't some damn game!" House Speaker John Boehner said at a news conference where he ratcheted up pressure on President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to negotiate changes to Obamacare as part of any deal to end the shutdown.

Repeating his insistence that the other side is responsible for the furlough of up to 800,000 workers and other impacts of the shutdown, Boehner said Democrats were willing to let the stalemate continue because they think they are winning the public debate.

"The American people don't want their government shut down and neither do I," Boehner said, calling again for talks on anti-Obamacare provisions that House GOP leaders say are intended to ensure fairness under the president's signature health care reforms.

For his part, Obama repeated his challenge for Boehner to allow the House to vote on a Senate version of a spending plan, saying it would pass the House and end the shutdown "today."

"I'm happy to have negotiations. We can't do it with a gun held to the head of the American people," Obama said during a lunch break with Vice President Joe Biden at a sandwich shop.

Obama and Democrats reject the GOP demands, calling them political extortion intended to force concessions on the 2010 Affordable Care Act that was upheld by the Supreme Court last year. In their view, Republicans forced the shutdown and now have no strategy for ending it without getting blamed.

"They're flopping around like dead fish in the bottom of the boat trying to figure out what to do next," Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington told CNN. "They have no plan B."

Boehner and his GOP House leadership said they would proceed with votes, including a rare Saturday session, on piecemeal spending legislation to fund popular programs while the shutdown continues.

Democrats oppose the incremental approach, saying it amounts to conservatives pushing it to fund programs and services they like.
House Republican leaders sought to depict the legislative wrangling as Democrats harming federal workers and denying services such as national parks and veterans affairs by voting against the limited spending proposals focused on them.

Other piecemeal spending measures will provide funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Weather Service with a tropical storm brewing in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the Head Start program, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia said Friday.

Obama would veto such measures if they reached his desk, the White House has announced. On Friday, it said the president would sign one measure expected to pass Congress that would guarantee back pay for federal workers who are furloughed because of the shutdown.

A second fiscal deadline approaching soon -- the need to increase the federal debt ceiling by October 17 or face potential default on U.S. debt obligations -- has raised concerns that the legislative stalemate means paralysis that could cause serious economic harm at home and abroad.

However, Boehner reportedly told fellow GOP legislators this week that he won't allow the United States to default on its debt, even if it means getting help from Democrats to pass the necessary legislation, according to a Republican House member who requested anonymity to talk about the private meeting.

Congressional Republicans remain divided over how to structure legislation to raise the nation's borrowing level.
A Boehner aide said Thursday that the speaker "has always said the United States will not default on its debt, so that's not news," and Boehner said Friday that "I don't believe we should default on our debt."

However, he then repeated his longstanding contention that government spending must be cut so that the nation doesn't continue to rack up budget deficits.
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York cheered the reports that Boehner indicated he would not block a debt ceiling measure, even if most House Republicans oppose it.

The speaker took similar steps in the past year on raising tax rates on wealthy Americans and emergency spending after Superstorm Sandy.
"This could be the beginnings of a significant breakthrough," Schumer said in a statement. "Even coming close to the edge of default is very dangerous, and putting this issue to rest significantly ahead of the default date would allow everyone in the country to breathe a huge sigh of relief."

The potential breakthrough -- at least on the debt limit -- came two weeks before the government is set to run out of money to cover its roughly $16.7 trillion debt. Conservative Republicans want budget cuts in exchange for upping the credit limit.

Boehner wrote this week in USA Today that "there is no way Congress can or should pass (a debt ceiling increase) without spending cuts and reforms to deal with the debt and deficit and help get our economy moving again."

He accused the president of refusing to negotiate; Obama and Democratic leaders have since said they are open to talks on any and all budgetary matters, but only after the government is reopened.

Obama out of APEC meeting

Meanwhile, with his focus on the brewing domestic crisis, Obama canceled his trip to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bali, Indonesia.
"The president made this decision based on the difficulty in moving forward with foreign travel in the face of a shutdown, and his determination to continue pressing his case that Republicans should immediately allow a vote to reopen the government," a statement from the White House said.
Instead, Secretary of State John Kerry will lead the U.S. delegation in Asia.

Obama challenges Boehner on shutdown

On Thursday, Obama called the GOP strategy of tying government funding to anti-Obamacare provisions "reckless."
"The only thing that is keeping the government shut down, the only thing preventing people from going back to work, and basic research starting back up and farmers and small business owners getting their loans -- the only thing that's preventing all that from happening right now today, in the next five minutes, is that Speaker John Boehner won't even let the bill get a yes-or-no vote because he doesn't want to anger the extremists in his party," Obama said.

Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York told CNN on Friday that at least 180 of the 200 House Democrats would vote for the "clean" spending resolution already passed by the Senate that would end the shutdown.

That means at least 37 Republicans out of the chamber's 233-strong majority would have to defy the party's strategy so far to reach the 217 threshold needed for the measure to pass and go to Obama's desk.

Israel said 20 House Republicans had publicly expressed support for such a move, and that he expected more than enough others to join them if the measure actually came up for a vote.

Reid was part of the Democratic chorus Thursday, accusing Boehner of reneging on an agreement to let the House vote on a "clean" spending package of $988 billion, $70 billion less than Democrats wanted. Boehner went back on that deal, Reid surmised in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, because he feared fellow Republicans would turn on him and oust him from his position as House speaker.

Cantor: GOP should stand its ground

GOP Rep. Michael Grimm of New York said Thursday night that "very, very arrogant and very obstinate" remarks by Reid and what he calls a lack of needed leadership from Obama undermines the chances of reaching a deal.

"If you're going to be insulted ... and if you're going to be spoken down to and there's going to be this air of arrogance, you're only going to make things worse," Grimm told CNN's Anderson Cooper.

While Grimm and a few other moderate Republicans have backed a "clean" spending bill without anti-Obamacare provisions, some of his colleagues in the House say the party won't budge from their strategy.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas described his caucus as "very unified" and said Reid and Obama are "confused" if they think "we're going to fold and let them win on everything."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/326675-dems-plan-discharge-petition-to-force-vote-on-ending-shutdown

Dems plan discharge petition to force vote on ending shutdown

QuoteHouse Democratic leaders will begin circulating a discharge petition Friday in hopes of forcing a vote on a "clean" spending bill.

GOP leaders have so far refused to stage a vote on the Senate-passed continuing resolution (CR), insisting that the measure also include conservative provisions scaling back President Obama's healthcare law.

But with more than 20 centrist Republicans indicating support for a clean CR, the Democrats are hoping they can attract the 218 signatures required to force such of vote.

The Democrats' gambit is a long-shot, however, as there's no indication that those centrist Republicans would poke their leadership even further by signing the discharge petition.

Indeed, those Republicans have sided with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on a series of votes this week to fund the government with piecemeal bills – a strategy rejected by Obama and the Democrats.

Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) launched their discharge-petition effort Friday after an afternoon meeting in the Capitol, where the Democratic Caucus huddled with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to discuss the party's shutdown strategy.

"It is very unfortunate that the majority of the House has not been allowed to freely cast its vote to reopen the government," Miller said. "But one thing [that's] becoming clearer is that, as the shutdown drags on, a growing number of Republican members of Congress want the opportunity to work with Democrats to end this crisis."

Under their petition strategy, Miller said, the House could vote on a clean CR on Oct. 14, at the earliest.

The Democrats had initially thought the discharge petition option was unavailable, because a bill must be at least 30 legislative days old before it can be subject to such a drive. But the Democrats have located a GOP bill introduced in March that serves the same purpose as the Senate-passed CR.

Sponsored by Rep. James Lankford (Okla.), head of the Republican Policy Committee, the bill would create "an automatic CR for any regular appropriations bill not completed before the end of the fiscal year," according to Lankford's release.

The Democrats don't intend to pass the Lankford bill, but just to use it as a vehicle to pass the Senate's CR.

"We will have a complete substitute for that language which will be a clean continuing resolution to open up the government," Miller said.

Asked how he expects to get the 218 signatures needed to discharge the Lankford bill, Miller was terse.

"You round 'em up," he said.

LOL!

Nasa's website down as a result of government shutdown. http://www.NASA.gov

Actually, it's not.  All of the subdomains are still up and running. 
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/index.cfm
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/index.cfm

Apparently the servers have not received their furlough notice.  :D

Tea Party Leaders Announce Support For Deal In Exchange For Malia Obama

http://tinyurl.com/oa9883q (http://tinyurl.com/oa9883q)

QuoteWASHINGTON—As the federal government shutdown stretches into its fourth day, 20 members of the Republican's Tea Party faction announced this morning they would be willing to support a clean budget resolution bill in exchange for the president's firstborn daughter, Malia Obama.

While members of the Republican Party's far-right wing have heretofore been resistant to any sort of deal with the White House over the issue of Obamacare, the Tea Party caucus authored and released a short, tersely worded statement this morning in which they agreed to a swift negotiation of an unstipulated spending bill if the president were to deliver "the firstling."

"The girl. Bring us the girl," said Congressman Steve King (R-IA) as he stood beside fellow Tea Party leaders during this morning's press conference on the steps of the Capitol. "The bill may pass, but the firstborn shall be ours."

"Heed our bidding," added an unblinking Phil Gingrey (R-GA). "And thy wish shall be granted."

According to Washington insiders, the deal would reportedly feature a continuing resolution to fund government operations through November 15 without any modifications to the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, including implementation of the individual mandate and the much-maligned tax on medical devices, while Malia Obama would legally fall under the protectorship of the Tea Party caucus.

White House officials have declined to comment.

According to Congressional aides, if the White House agrees to deliver Malia, as well as a pint of Michelle Obama's blood, a ram's horn, and a shard of obsidian to the basement of the Cannon House Office Building by this evening, a House vote on the bill could take place as early as Saturday.

"Obamacare may be a scourge, but lo, our eyes are cast upon matters of greater import," explained Tea Party Republican Justin Amash of Michigan's third district. "Preparations must be made. The hour is nigh."

While some political analysts argued the surprise announcement suggests a weakening in resolve of the faction, opening the door for further movement on their stance, several Republican staffers have already indicated that the caucus will not negotiate on their declared terms and that any attempts to substitute Sasha for Malia will be fruitless.

"It must be Malia," stated Mick Mulvaney (R-SC). "First of birth. First of blood. First of the reckoning."

Experts added that in addition to limiting the damage of the current government shutdown, the deal could also avoid a protracted and dangerous battle over raising the nation's debt ceiling in the coming weeks if members of the Tea Party determine Malia has fulfilled the prophecy.

"The Tea Party has spoken," said Georgetown professor of political science Richard Drape. "The deal has been wrought. All bear witness to the fruits of the Great Compromise, for it is with us."

At press time, a teary-eyed Michelle Obama was informing Malia that she will always love her.

Waka

Quote from: Townsend on October 04, 2013, 03:44:21 PM
Tea Party Leaders Announce Support For Deal In Exchange For Malia Obama

http://tinyurl.com/oa9883q (http://tinyurl.com/oa9883q)

Waka

You donkey.  I was copying/pasting that when I double-checked.   ;D

Quote"This isn't some damn game!" House Speaker John Boehner said at a news conference where he ratcheted up pressure on President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to negotiate changes to Obamacare as part of any deal to end the shutdown.

The orange man is a funny guy...

Quote from: Hoss on October 04, 2013, 03:51:18 PM
You donkey.  I was copying/pasting that when I double-checked.   ;D

"First of birth. First of blood. First of the reckoning."

AP just reported that a man set himself on fire at the National Mall.  
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/192737aib71hyjpg/original.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 04:22:09 PM
AP just reported that a man set himself on fire at the National Mall.  
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/192737aib71hyjpg/original.jpg)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-sets-fire-national-mall-20476899 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-sets-fire-national-mall-20476899)

QuoteMan Sets Himself on Fire on the National Mall
WASHINGTON October 5, 2013 (AP)
Associated Press
A fire official says a man has been flown to the hospital after setting himself on fire on the National Mall.

Fire crews responded Friday afternoon to a report of a man on fire at 7th Street and Madison Drive. A witness says she saw a man dump a red canister of gasoline on his head and then set himself on fire.

D.C. Fire Department spokesman Tim Wilson says the man has life-threatening injuries.

His name and age weren't immediately known.

Katy Scheflen says she was walking along the Mall when she saw a man by himself pick up a can of gasoline and empty its contents on his head before setting himself ablaze.

She says passing joggers took off their shirts to help douse the flames.

Quote from: Townsend on October 04, 2013, 04:36:32 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-sets-fire-national-mall-20476899 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-sets-fire-national-mall-20476899)

I have heard people attest that Speaker Boehner smells like burnt toast.

http://screen.yahoo.com/snl/did-stop-060000269.html

Miley Cyrus weighs in on shutdown.

Veterans are warned that they will be arrested if they attempt to visit the WWII memorial in DC.  HonorFlight is denied permits for Veterans to visit the memorial by the Spite House.

Meanwhile, the Spite House and parks department has approved a permit for Culture Strike's day of Action, to open the National Mall for an immigration rally.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWDng-eCcAABo-2.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWDvB4QCEAA6Nmc.jpg)

Here is a great video if you would like to make a sign for the rally:
 

Perhaps we can just take down the barrycades for the veterans for a little while?  Sure, most of them don't vote Democrat, but they did fight for your freedom so that you could.

Maybe a few more of these will get something going.  Reason's not going to do it apparently.

Poll: 70 Percent Disapprove of GOP

QuoteSo the GOP is not really winning hearts and minds during the budget battle. Seventy percent of Americans disapprove of the way congressional Republicans are handling the crisis, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. What's more, 51 percent of those said they disapproved "strongly" of the GOP's actions. Congressional Democrats didn't fare much better: 61 percent disapprove of their actions. President Obama's approval rating, meanwhile, ticked up slightly, with 45 approving of the way he has handled the negotiations, up from 41 percent last week. He still has an overall 51 percent disapproval rating, with 39 disapproving "strongly." - See more at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/10/08/poll-70-percent-disapprove-of-gop.html#sthash.eAe4GN1W.dpuf

Muskogee Veterans Affairs Regional Office closes as shutdown drags on

The Muskogee Veterans Affairs Regional Office succumbed to the effects of the federal shutdown Tuesday, closing all operations deemed non-essential. The regional office, which is home to the VA's only call center responsible for responding to education benefits inquiries, closed to the public Monday afternoon. The call center is also expected to close in conjunction with the shutdown. According to Jacob Nichols with the office of the director, the Muskogee VA Regional Office is the biggest of the VA's 56 regional offices. More than 1,300 are employed at the office, which has an annual payroll of $105 million.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/muskogee/continued-government-shutdown-could-force-muskogee-regional-veterans-affairs-to-halt-some-operations (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/muskogee/continued-government-shutdown-could-force-muskogee-regional-veterans-affairs-to-halt-some-operations)

National Guard cancels drills during government shutdown

QuoteAlmost all of Oklahoma's 9,700 National Guard members will not drill again until the federal government shutdown ends, which, depending on the shutdown's length, could keep millions of dollars out of the state's economy, a Guard official said Monday. Drills scheduled for October's first weekend were canceled, Col. Max Moss said, and the Guard sent out a message on its Facebook page Monday saying this coming weekend's drills have been canceled, as well. "No National Guard units are able to perform IDT (Inactive Duty Training) during the shutdown unless it's in support of a mobilizing unit," Moss said. The shutdown will affect all National Guard members in the nation, he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/national-guard-cancels-drills-during-government-shutdown/article_42968292-7562-510c-ac34-dd1a4be3e7c7.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/national-guard-cancels-drills-during-government-shutdown/article_42968292-7562-510c-ac34-dd1a4be3e7c7.html)

Analysis - What default? Republicans downplay impact of U.S. debt limit

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-default-republicans-downplay-impact-u-debt-limit-003357257--business.html (http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-default-republicans-downplay-impact-u-debt-limit-003357257--business.html)

QuoteWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration says a U.S. default would be "catastrophic." Economists say it could plunge the country into recession and prompt a global financial meltdown.

To many Republicans, however, the prospect of the world's lone superpower juggling its bills doesn't seem so bad. The government could muddle through without a debt-ceiling increase as long as it kept up with interest payments and a few other priorities, they argue.

"We are not going to default on the public debt. That doesn't mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in," Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas said on CNBC on Monday.

Barton's position could reflect a genuine disagreement with warnings by Wall Street and Washington analysts or he could be downplaying the default to gain tactical advantage in negotiations with President Barack Obama. But Barton isn't an outlier.

Nearly every Republican in the House of Representatives voted for a bill in May that would direct the Treasury Department to prioritize bond payments and Social Security retiree benefits over other obligations if Congress failed to extend its borrowing authority. In the Senate, 29 of the chamber's 44 Republicans have signed on to the idea.

Republicans say that approach would minimize the fallout if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department exhausts its borrowing authority on October 17.

Past and present Treasury officials and Wall Street analysts reject that view out of hand as naive at best.

In order to make sure bond payments and Social Security checks went out on time, the government would have to delay other payments by days or weeks. That would send a massive economic shockwave through military contractors, hospitals, and other entities farther down the priority list.

The plan also may not be workable in a practical sense. The U.S. Treasury handles 4 million transactions a day, and separating some of them out would be practically impossible.

"It's mind-boggling. I don't know what to say," said Tony Fratto, a Republican and a former Treasury Department official under President George W. Bush. "Every member of Congress should know this. These aren't complicated concepts."

That may not be the point. By presenting a plan to deal with a possible default, Republican lawmakers can show voters they are taking steps to minimize any potential fallout.

NEGOTIATING PLOY?

And as the October 17 deadline approaches, they may gain a negotiating advantage by showing Democrats they are not particularly afraid of going right up to the edge - or over it.

"It's a strategy to say, 'We can hold out longer, because we don't think it's so bad,'" said New York University political science professor Steven Brams, who has written extensively about strategic decision-making.

With the government entering its second week of a partial shutdown due to a dispute over Obama's healthcare law, business leaders are warning against further brinkmanship. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for a "clean" debt ceiling increase, without any other legislation attached, while financial executives like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs have urged the lawmakers to resolve the dispute quickly.

The uncertainty has weighed on financial markets. The CBOE Volatility index .VIX - a measure of market turbulence called the "fear index" - has risen by nearly 50 percent over the past three weeks amid fear of a default and anxiety over a related government shutdown that took effect on October 1.

"With each passing day, the market becomes more restless," said Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in New York.

The last debt-ceiling showdown in August 2011 proved costly. Lawmakers averted default with a last-minute deal, consumer confidence plummeted and the S&P 500 .SPX fell 17 percent. Although the S&P 500 recovered in a little over two weeks, the standoff will cost the government $18.9 billion over 10 years in higher interest costs, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Republicans touted their prioritization scheme back then as well. Some lawmakers, notably Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann, a Republican representative from Minnesota, said they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling no matter what.

This time around some Tea Party Republicans, like Florida Representative Ted Yoho, also say they will vote 'no.'

But party leaders like Boehner say they will be able to round up enough votes to raise the debt ceiling as long as they get concessions from Obama.

Many Republicans also suspect that the administration has some additional tricks to stave off default that they haven't disclosed. While Treasury says it can't guarantee payments after October 17, analysts say actual default could come days or weeks later, and lawmakers wonder if they are being rushed unnecessarily.

Though both sides have begun to extend tentative feelers that could lead to a way out of the standoff, both believe that they can extract the most concessions by holding out until the last possible minute. In this context, Republicans' move to downplay the October 17 deadline makes sense, Brams said.

"I don't expect we'd see a compromise until we're at the brink," Brams said.

Votes are there to break shutdown, but not the will

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/votes-are-there-to-break-shutdown-but-not-the-will/?sr=fb100813shutdowncount1015a (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/votes-are-there-to-break-shutdown-but-not-the-will/?sr=fb100813shutdowncount1015a)

QuoteWashington (CNN) – There appeared to be enough votes in the House on Tuesday to approve legislation to reopen the federal government, according to an ongoing CNN survey of House members

All 200 Democrats and 17 Republicans support passing a continuing resolution with no additional legislative strings attached that would reopen the federal government, which has been partially closed for a week over a bitter policy dispute between Republicans and Democrats on health care. The number 217 is significant in that it is the minimum needed for the measure to win approval in the House.

CNN's vote count appears to bear out what President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"The truth of the matter is, there are enough Republican and Democratic votes in the House of Representatives right now to end this shutdown immediately with no partisan strings attached," Obama said.

But this does not mean a vote will happen any time soon, given that these Republicans have not indicated a willingness to try to force Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to bring a continuing resolution with no strings attached to the floor for a vote.

The clean CR is at the center of the dispute between Obama and Republicans, the latter trying to use the government shutdown as a legislative avenue to help defund the president's health care law. Many House Republicans are demanding that passage of a continuing resolution is contingent on the health care law being delayed – the first step in an effort they hope to use to dismantle it. The president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, have said that the GOP's efforts are a non-starter.

As is the case with all vote counts, the numbers continually evolve and change by the hour and day.

Still, Boehner has maintained that there are not enough votes in the House to pass a "clean" CR.

"There are not the votes in the House to pass a clean CR," the speaker said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The American people expect in Washington, when we have a crisis like this, that the leaders will sit down and have a conversation. I told my members the other day, there may be a back room somewhere, but there's nobody in it."

Republican Rep. Charles Dent of Pennsylvania disagreed with the speaker's assessment. He told CNN on Monday that if the vote were to come to the floor, he believes it would pass.

"I believe a clean CR would pass comfortably," said Dent. "I'm not here to predict the number, I think it would clear the 217 vote barrier."

In response, Obama dared Boehner on Monday to prove that he doesn't have the votes for a clean continuing resolution.

"If Republicans and Speaker Boehner are saying there are not enough votes then they should prove it," Obama said. "Let the bill go to the floor, and let's see what happens. Just vote."

On Monday, as Democrats trumpeted other vote counts that appeared to show there are enough votes in the House to pass a clean government funding bill, a number of lawmakers began to walk back previous statements."

Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California was one of those lawmakers. After telling Huffington Post and others that he supported a government funding bill with no strings attached, his spokesman said Monday that "that was never the case."

"He does not support a clean CR, does not support it, does not advocate it," said Jack Langer, a spokesman for Nunes.

Republicans Leonard Lance of New Jersey and Randy Forbes of Virginia, who other news outlets report have supported a clean government funding bill, told CNN on Monday that they did not back the measure.

"Reports that Randy Forbes supports a 'clean' CR are not true," a Forbes said. "This was misrepresented in a story by the Virginian Pilot (newspaper), which subsequently was picked up by HuffPo and other national outlets – none of which bothered to contact our office to verify."

Instead, Forbes has introduced legislation that would fund all of the government except Obamcare, the aide said.

Not all Republicans moved away from voting for a government funding bill with no strings attached.

Late on Monday, Republican Rep. David Reichert of Washington said he would "continue to vote for any legislation that keeps the federal government open."

Other Republican members, like Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, would not confirm a report from the Miami Herald that said the lawmaker would support a clean resolution.

"The president needs to sit down and negotiate with the speaker," Cesar Gonzalez, a spokesman for Diaz-Balart, said. "In the meantime, the congressman does not think it is wise to negotiate through the press."

Military death benefits halted due to government shutdown.

http://www.today.com/news/shutdown-denies-death-benefits-families-fallen-soldiers-8C11355842

Quote from: Townsend on October 08, 2013, 08:42:51 AM
Maybe a few more of these will get something going.  Reason's not going to do it apparently.

Poll: 70 Percent Disapprove of GOP

Poll: 63% disapprove of GOP

Not a very exacting science apparently:

QuoteA new CNN/ORC International poll shows that no one is coming out ahead in the current federal funding impasse, but Republicans are taking more heat than the Democrats.

According to the survey, 63 percent of those questioned said they were angry at Republicans, with 57 percent also angry at Democrats, and 53 percent unhappy with President Obama. Nearly half of those surveyed said the shutdown has caused major problems.



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/08/in-new-poll-americans-blame-everyone-for-government-shutdown/#ixzz2h97Rj3Nj

Quote from: swake on October 08, 2013, 09:29:34 AM
Military death benefits halted due to government shutdown.

http://www.today.com/news/shutdown-denies-death-benefits-families-fallen-soldiers-8C11355842

What does and does not get funded during a shut down is determined by someone, somewhere.  It's not like it happens in a vacuum.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2013, 10:51:41 AM
What does and does not get funded during a shut down is determined by someone, somewhere.  It's not like it happens in a vacuum.

Like bringing a clean CR to the House floor.  That evidently happens in a vac...wait.  Sorry.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2013, 10:51:41 AM
What does and does not get funded during a shut down is determined by someone, somewhere.  It's not like it happens in a vacuum.

There's a law regarding what does and does not. I've posted it before.

Quote from: swake on October 08, 2013, 11:27:10 AM
There's a law regarding what does and does not. I've posted it before.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/10157579745_53dc3b6779_n.jpg)

Finally. A president with some balls. You guys wanted a total shutdown (slimdown). This is what it looks like.

Even so you can't afford to let your followers know how bad its going to hurt and like a true bully, you seem stunned that your victim actually hit back.

Quote from: AquaMan on October 08, 2013, 12:19:00 PM
Finally. A president with some balls. You guys wanted a total shutdown (slimdown). This is what it looks like.

Even so you can't afford to let your followers know how bad its going to hurt and like a true bully, you seem stunned that your victim actually hit back.

Actually quite entertaining from a analytical standpoint.  Because closing down 17% of the government doesn't make enough impact on regular folks, it is necessary to take extraordinary steps to inflict pain on the public in order to make the case for more government.  :D

President Stompy Foot, does have some balls.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/10157932495_3b63d4fbc4_q.jpg)

Call for a vote, Big Cheetoh.

This'll win it for them:

Arizona lawmaker refers to Obama as 'De Fuhrer' on Facebook

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-de-fuhrer-barton-obama-134942788.html (http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-de-fuhrer-barton-obama-134942788.html)

Must be swell to associate yourself with representation like this.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2013, 12:04:34 PM
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/10157579745_53dc3b6779_n.jpg)

Pro tip: before the 1980s, funding lapses didn't actually shut down the government. It was one of Reagan's attorney generals that decided the Anti-Deficiency act required an actual shut down. Try harder, please.

Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2013, 02:09:07 PM
Pro tip: before the 1980s, funding lapses didn't actually shut down the government. It was one of Reagan's attorney generals that decided the Anti-Deficiency act required an actual shut down. Try harder, please.

Try harder, Nate.  It was Benjamin Civiletti, AG under President Carter who made that determination.  Don't let your RDS glasses color your commentary.

QuoteDrawn-out fights over spending bills are nothing new for Congress. But that's where the fights used to stay: in Congress. The rest of the country didn't have to pay much attention to countdown clocks and all this drama.

"In the '60s and '70s down until 1980, it was not taken that seriously at all," says Charles Tiefer, a former legal adviser to the House of Representatives, who now teaches at the University of Baltimore Law School. In the old days, he says, when lawmakers reached a budget stalemate, the federal workforce just went about its business.

"It was thought that Congress would soon get around to passing the spending bill and there was no point in raising a ruckus while waiting," he says.

That easygoing attitude changed during the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration. That's when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion saying government work cannot go on until Congress agrees to pay for it.

"They used an obscure statute to say that if any work continued in an agency where there wasn't money, the employees were behaving like illegal volunteers," says Tiefer. "So they not only could shut off the lights and leave, they were obliged to shut off the lights and leave."

Civiletti later issued a second opinion with a less strict interpretation — allowing essential government services to continue in the absence of a spending bill. But even with that exception, the stakes of a legislative standoff had been raised — which could be why lawmakers suddenly got serious about making deals.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/30/227292952/a-short-history-of-government-shutdowns

I read '81 was the year of the change, so blamed Reagan's AG. That's not the point, though. The point is that talking about a pre-1980 "shutdown" is silly. And IIRC, the 3 or 4 mini-shutdowns on Reagan's watch were no more than 3-4 days and always included a weekend, so those don't really set any useful precedent. The only good precedent we have is the shutdowns under Clinton, after which there were a spate of Anti-Deficiency Act complaints that seem to have appropriately chastened the executive branch.

Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2013, 02:40:00 PM
I read '81 was the year of the change, so blamed Reagan's AG. That's not the point, though. The point is that talking about a pre-1980 "shutdown" is silly. And IIRC, the 3 or 4 mini-shutdowns on Reagan's watch were no more than 3-4 days and always included a weekend, so those don't really set any useful precedent. The only good precedent we have is the shutdowns under Clinton, after which there were a spate of Anti-Deficiency Act complaints that seem to have appropriately chastened the executive branch.

(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Pointless_9fdc15_2207620.jpg)

Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2013, 02:40:00 PM
I read '81 was the year of the change, so blamed Reagan's AG. That's not the point, though. The point is that talking about a pre-1980 "shutdown" is silly. And IIRC, the 3 or 4 mini-shutdowns on Reagan's watch were no more than 3-4 days and always included a weekend, so those don't really set any useful precedent. The only good precedent we have is the shutdowns under Clinton, after which there were a spate of Anti-Deficiency Act complaints that seem to have appropriately chastened the executive branch.

Not even Clinton had the spitefulness to pull this smile of sending in manpower to close open air memorials and parks and attempting to close a privately run operation at Mount Vernon because the Park Service owns the parking lot or parts of the parking area. 

QuoteAlthough President Obama claims that he can't avoid shutting down public sites and monuments, war memorials were in fact kept open during the 1995/1996 government shutdowns.  The administration's decision to barricade the Lincoln Memorial marks the first time in its history the memorial has been totally off limits to visitors during a shutdown.

The administration has also balked at efforts by non-governmental groups to maintain access to public sites. (Related: RNC offers to pay to keep WWII memorial open)

But during the Clinton-era shutdown, World War II veterans kept the Pearl Harbor memorial open.

It is not clear how much taxpayer money the Obama administration is paying to ensure that government sites and services remain shuttered to taxpayers. Popular Washington spots such as the World War II memorial are now guarded by more security personnel than they are during normal operations, while federal employees have been dispatched to put up barricades on capital bike paths and other public grounds that are not usually patrolled at all.

Obama's team has also been caught deliberately punishing World War II veterans trying to visit their own memorial, with one administration official telling a veteran's supporter, "It's a government shutdown, what do you expect?" (Related: Obama admin. knew about WWII veterans' request and rejected it)

The American people are currently paying for eight mounted cops to keep people out of the World War II memorial.

Daniel Burnett, a volunteer with Honor Flight, sent The Daily Caller FOAIed documents showing how much the Park Service is spending on the mounted police. To house, feed, and care for the horses it costs more than $41,000 year. Park police starting salary is $52,020, according to their website.

Another unprecedented aspect of the current shutdown is that the president has until Wednesday evening refused any discussions with the opposition leadership. In 1995 and 1996 President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich negotiated vigorously and struck several  compromises, such as 75-percent funding plan that lasted more than a month. (Related: US economy boomed during 1995/1996 shutdown)

Follow Charles on Twitter

Tags: Government Shutdown, Lincoln Memorial, World War II



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/monuments-and-memorials-remained-open-during-previous-shutdown/#ixzz2hA4WpBCp

A photo of the Lincoln Memorial during the government shutdown of 1995 shows the info booth closed but tourists still had access to the grounds.

(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lincolnmemorialshutdown1995.jpg)

2013:

(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/d08f801fba2a4d6b9bb5225af6e24bdf-e1380746231920.jpg)


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/monuments-and-memorials-remained-open-during-previous-shutdown/#ixzz2hA52Sg8g

Congressional gym has been kept open though.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/10/08/2748461/members-only-congressional-gyms-deemed-essential-remain-open-during-shutdown/

Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2013, 03:28:20 PM
Congressional gym has been kept open though.

Tanning

Yeah, Conan, never mind the many requests before the shutdown to sit down and hash out their differences. Those apparently don't count.

The point is, be careful what you hope for, ask for, demand, minimize the effects of, glorify, and use for political bargaining purposes. It may just come back to bite you in the posterior.

Put me in the group that enjoys Obama and the Senate having called their bluff and looks forward to this threat being less effective in the future. Bullies who act surprised when met with their own tactics get no sympathy from me. Boehner and other responsible Republicans need to stand up to those minorities in their party who think the American population sympathize with their anarchy couched as patriotism.

Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2013, 04:03:20 PM
Yeah, Conan, never mind the many requests before the shutdown to sit down and hash out their differences. Those apparently don't count.

The ones I heard about don't.

Fully fund everything or fully fund everything.

Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2013, 02:40:00 PM
I read '81 was the year of the change, so blamed Reagan's AG. That's not the point, though.

But it gave you a chance to (incorrectly) take a shot at the Reagan administration.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 08, 2013, 06:40:07 PM
But it gave you a chance to (incorrectly) take a shot at the Reagan administration.

I wasn't taking a shot. I think the way it is now is how it should be. If appropriations lapse, the government should not be allowed to continue on as if they haven't. The previous situation where they just wandered along in violation of the law because it was easier was not the right (or legal) way to handle the situation.

The actual point was that blaming Obama for doing his duty and faithfully executing the law is nonsense. Not nearly as nonsensical as the House Republicans trying to overturn a law by forcing the government to shut down. Or force deficit reduction or repeal of the medical device tax or whatever other excuse they've decided to use today. (Never mind that the deficit was $200 billion lower in FY2013 than it was in FY2012 and under current law will be another $250 billion lower than that this year if the Republicans don't succeed at forcing us into a depression, anyway)

Funny they would advocate repealing the medical device tax if their goal is to reduce the deficit. Oh, right, it's part of the ACA so it's evil. Plus they would get the added bonus of retroactively making their claims about Obamacare increasing the deficit correct.

So, who really is responsible for "the liberal shutdown?"
Another smoking gun clip from the Daily Show has the answer:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-8-2013/the-shutdown-blame-game

Excellent graphic of what is and is not shut down.  Perhaps a good roadmap for cuts?
http://labs.enigma.io/shutdown2013/

Where we stand regarding default:

(http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/images/xdate(1).jpg) (http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/images/daterollover.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2013, 02:33:32 PM
Excellent graphic of what is and is not shut down.  Perhaps a good roadmap for cuts?
http://labs.enigma.io/shutdown2013/

Notice how many the EPA and IRS have furloughed?

Quote from: nathanm on October 09, 2013, 03:01:54 PM
Where we stand regarding default:

(http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/images/xdate(1).jpg) (http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/images/daterollover.jpg)

Here's Bloomberg's take:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-07/a-u-s-default-seen-as-catastrophe-dwarfing-lehman-s-fall.html

Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2013, 03:22:12 PM
Notice how many the EPA and IRS have furloughed?

Most probably didn't even notice.

DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPARTMENT

Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2013, 12:04:34 PM
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/10157579745_53dc3b6779_n.jpg)

They were all most likely "Swift Boaters"...trying to make political hay by pushing on a button they knew was deactivated, then complaining about it when it didn't work...reactionary extremists!  Where have we seen that before?  Oh, yeah...with the Swift Boaters....


Well, actually, that is pretty stupid not to have the open air monuments open.  But hey, that's what your Boehner wanted, so that's what he country is getting screwed with.

Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2013, 03:30:05 PM
Most probably didn't even notice.

DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPARTMENT

Funny how you only hate law enforcement when it's directed at rich white people. Usually you're so far up their donkey you're the one saying "do you know why I stopped you?"

Tom Coburn may officially go love himself. He should be seen as a traitor to his country for advocating default that we default on our debt so his side can get what it wants.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/coburn-need-managed-catastrophe-now-to-make-difficult-budget-choices

And this might hit a little closer to home for some of you guys:

http://news.yahoo.com/shutdown-means-no-beer-craft-brewers-051509016--finance.html

Quote from: nathanm on October 09, 2013, 09:57:02 PM
Tom Coburn may officially go love himself. He should be seen as a traitor to his country for advocating default that we default on our debt so his side can get what it wants.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/coburn-need-managed-catastrophe-now-to-make-difficult-budget-choices

Failing to raise the debt limit is not the same as default.  You know that don't you?  It wouldn't be a good thing, but it would not cause a default unless the president chooses not to service the debt and that is unlikely (we hope).  If we don't raise the debt, it would be necessary to cut about 1/3 of total spending to stay in the black (LOL we would still be in the red).  Coburn is simply playing his part in the puppet show.  I think their is plenty of opportunity for spending negotiation.  We have learned that this president typically won't make budget decisions until he is under significant duress, and has the opportunity campaign and make a couple dozen speeches, so we have to go through this theater frequently instead of grown-up budget activities.

Try to enjoy the show.  Unfortunately it's the only thing on.

Everyone The U.S. Government Owes Money To, In One Graph

QuoteIf Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling soon, the U.S. government won't be able to pay its debts. Here's who the government owes money to — all the holders of U.S. Treasury debt, broken down by category and by how much government debt they hold.

(http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2013/10/pm-gov_debt_v-624.gif)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/10/230944425/everyone-the-u-s-government-owes-money-to-in-one-graph (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/10/230944425/everyone-the-u-s-government-owes-money-to-in-one-graph)

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1381613_10151959076795329_2009617359_n.jpg)

Quote from: Townsend on October 10, 2013, 08:34:19 AM
(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1381613_10151959076795329_2009617359_n.jpg)

Yesterday groups tore down all of the Spite House tape.  The parks police have backed down but some are still getting $100 fines for using public spaces. 

Quote from: Gaspar on October 10, 2013, 08:40:06 AM
Yesterday groups tore down all of the Spite House tape.  The parks police have backed down but some are still getting $100 fines for using public spaces. 

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-10/enhanced/webdr02/9/15/enhanced-buzz-8302-1381347263-27.jpg)

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-10/enhanced/webdr05/9/16/enhanced-buzz-32349-1381348889-31.jpg)

Government still hiring for some great paying jobs:

QuoteThe federal government is shut down, but that hasn't stopped agencies from running lots of "help wanted" ads.
More than 4,000 job postings remained active on the federal government's hiring site as of Tuesday. Although many ads first ran before the shutdown began, nearly 500 posts were placed in the past three days.

The vacancies include some high-priced positions: a media relations officer job paying up to $155,000 at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of implementing Obamacare, and a senior communications and marketing specialist for the Patent and Trademark Office, making up to $136,000.

The newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau placed an ad Friday for a chief of staff to the chief information officer, a position that advertises a salary of $121,000 to $224,000.

With so much of the rest of the government closed, including national monuments and parks, the advertising of so many job postings raises larger questions about the shutdown, according to one government watchdog.

"It goes to the whole discussion about how much of a shutdown this really is in the first place," said David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

"It's more of a slowdown or a selective shutdown where they're shutting down things that are getting the biggest bang for the PR buck," Mr. Williams said. "It's a strange thing to be shutting down memorials and, at the same time, they keep trying to hire people. That makes no sense."

The government's hiring database — usajobs.gov — is run by the Office of Personnel Management, which has notified the public that some of its websites might not work until after the shutdown. Still, the jobs site, which the agency says isn't funded with annual appropriations, seemed largely unaffected.

On Tuesday alone, agencies posted at least 182 new job ads, including a supervisory information technology specialist at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency offering a salary of $98,000 to $182,000 per year.

While many ads offered jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, which the House has voted to exempt from the shutdown, other agencies posting ads included the departments of defense, energy, homeland security, justice and Treasury.

Several agencies, such as the Commerce Department, weren't available to discuss the hiring efforts and their newly placed job ads. Calls to public information offices were met with voicemail messages saying nobody could return calls until after the shutdown. Among other agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau isn't funded by congressional appropriations, so it isn't impacted directly by the shutdown.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/8/thousands-of-federal-job-openings-posted-in-spite-/#.UlaZQiIdDkI.email#ixzz2hKZ2JFD5
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I'm in the wrong line of work.

Shutdown Day 10: House GOP will propose a short-term debt ceiling proposal

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/10/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?sr=fb101013gophouse1145p (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/10/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?sr=fb101013gophouse1145p)

QuoteHouse Republicans will propose a temporary increase in the debt ceiling to allow for negotiations on larger deficit-reduction issues, House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday. Boehner also said he welcomed a meeting with President Barack Obama planned for later in the day, saying he hoped it would be substantive discussion on measures to reduce the nation's deficit but adding he didn't want to set any preconditions.

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1376555_10151959242260329_613804608_n.jpg)

Quote from: Townsend on October 10, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1376555_10151959242260329_613804608_n.jpg)

Do the animals know this?

Quote from: Gaspar on October 10, 2013, 06:08:23 AM
Failing to raise the debt limit is not the same as default.

You really think people are just going to blithely keep holding treasuries when our government is so politically dysfunctional it can't even raise the debt limit, which would need to increase even if the budget were balanced? I thought you understood business. Yes, not paying bondholders would be even worse, but expecting no consequences whatsoever is bucking stupid. If nothing else, what makes you think tax revenue won't decrease markedly when the economy shrinks something like 7% overnight?

Moreover, we do not have the tax revenue necessary to pay all obligations when due, even with prioritization. I cannot believe you seriously just said that failing to raise the debt limit wouldn't be a problem. How much more disconnected from reality can you possibly get?

I just realized I ought to expound on the point about the debt limit needed to be increased even if the budget is balanced for those who don't know (thanks to Congressional Research Service reports, I now know this). Because of the way we account for the various government trust funds, incoming revenue to the trust funds requires the federal government issue interagency debt, which for whatever reason does count against the debt ceiling. So if we pay $100 billion in payroll taxes and only pay out $60 billion in Social Security and Medicare payments, we have to issue $40 billion in debt by law. Doesn't matter if we're going to spend that $40 billion on something else or if it's just going to sit in Treasury's account at the Fed.

As part of the Treasury Secretary's powers to take extraordinary measures once we've hit the debt limit, issuance of debt to some trust funds can be delayed, but not SS and Medicare.

Those who really believe that not increasing the debt limit is an option ought to look at the rates for short term treasury debt over the last couple of days. Even if we don't default, it's pretty clear interest rates on our debt will increase significantly. Why do you think it's a good idea to suck up more of our budget with interest payments? Is it really worth it when the deficit has already been cut in half relative to the one Bush left us?

Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2013, 11:29:59 AM
You really think people are just going to blithely keep holding treasuries when our government is so politically dysfunctional it can't even raise the debt limit, which would need to increase even if the budget were balanced? I thought you understood business. Yes, not paying bondholders would be even worse, but expecting no consequences whatsoever is bucking stupid. If nothing else, what makes you think tax revenue won't decrease markedly when the economy shrinks something like 7% overnight?

The biggest holders of our notes wouldn't bat an eye in the real world.  Oh, there would be screaming, crying, wailing and gnashing of teeth, but in a very real sense - IF, and it's a huge IF, we did pay them back - which we won't - where would they go??  What other choice is there in the entire world that offers at least an ongoing "interest" stream of money.  NO where!  If for no other reason, than the fact that we would then be unable to keep buying whichever commodity of interest we are loading up with now.  Oil, clothing, trinkets, whatever.  They all know that if we fall hard, they will fall harder - nobody wants that - so they are gonna grit their teeth and just go along for the ride.

It's all a shell game - Monopoly if you will... where the money in the debt, as it relates to say, China, Japan, Saudi, etc isn't real.  Social Security trust fund, and some of the other smaller players ARE real, but they are much more manageable in scope - perhaps around half of the 'total'?  It's not a social crisis.

Now, if we could just get Boner to control his lunatic party... this wouldn't even be making the news anymore.

One interesting thing I would like to see is a challenge to this whole "debt limit" joke.  By definition, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to create indebtedness and pay for it.  So, a law written by Congress that says we can't do that (debt limit), must, by its very nature be Un-Constitutional.  But that would require a court challenge, which NEITHER side is gonna pursue.

That is pretty much the status quo, H. People (effectively) giving us free smile because it contributes to their own economic development. But the scheme is predicated on us not being insane enough to destroy ourselves and them with us. Our status as a safe haven has already been battered by the financial crisis and past episodes of brinksmanship. If we act too crazy, they may decide it's time to cut their losses. Our economy and our remaining nonmilitary geopolitical influence depends largely on the dollar's position as a reserve currency. You'd think the people who are most concerned with foreign policy would care that they are putting all that at significant risk.

Maybe they've just decided they're tired of being called liars and fools for and are trying to turn their dire predictions about a hyperinflationary debt crisis into reality.

Here's hoping for a continued government shutdown and default. Praying it will not be as devastating as the sequester turned out. I still haven't recovered from that calamity (from laughing).

Quote from: guido911 on October 10, 2013, 06:05:05 PM
Here's hoping for a continued government shutdown and default. Praying it will not be as devastating as the sequester turned out.

Nobody said the sequester would be a disaster. They said it would slow the rate growth, which it has. Regardless, I'm not really sure what's so hard to understand about uncertainty in valuation of securities previously considered to be basically zero risk leading to a credit freeze. It's not like we didn't have a preview a few years ago.

Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2013, 06:52:42 PM
Nobody said the sequester would be a disaster. They said it would slow the rate growth, which it has. Regardless, I'm not really sure what's so hard to understand about uncertainty in valuation of securities previously considered to be basically zero risk leading to a credit freeze. It's not like we didn't have a preview a few years ago.

Meet "Nobody".
(http://www.bbcnewsupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Leon-Panetta.jpg)

http://fedscoop.com/panetta-sequestration-would-be-a-disaster/

And finding that link took googling "sequester would disaster".

Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
That is pretty much the status quo, H. People (effectively) giving us free smile because it contributes to their own economic development. But the scheme is predicated on us not being insane enough to destroy ourselves and them with us. Our status as a safe haven has already been battered by the financial crisis and past episodes of brinksmanship. If we act too crazy, they may decide it's time to cut their losses. Our economy and our remaining nonmilitary geopolitical influence depends largely on the dollar's position as a reserve currency. You'd think the people who are most concerned with foreign policy would care that they are putting all that at significant risk.

Maybe they've just decided they're tired of being called liars and fools for and are trying to turn their dire predictions about a hyperinflationary debt crisis into reality.

Worked out pretty good for 25 years or so....but it is a pyramid scheme and will slow to a stop.  Probably sooner than later.

We place orders for goods and materials with China (creating a demand that generates economic activity).  They build it and ship it (building their infrastructure and learning the methods).  We receive massive amounts of every kind of "stuff" imaginable (crazy piles of cheap crap to 'fill' our lives.)  They send us big piles of money to park it in a "safe" place (getting some more cash in the form of interest - no matter how small). 

Summary; We give them money.  They give us stuff.  They give us the money back.  And are left with a massive new economic engine and infrastructure. 

If they walked away from the trillion +, they are still way ahead of the game.  And they are (hopefully) less interested in a war with us due to economic entanglement.  Never mind that (I think it was) Zhou Enlai said that war with the US was inevitable....  as everyone who has ever been on a school playground knows, sooner or later, the two biggest kids on the block are gonna fight.

I know you know all this...just laying out the scenario as a kind of review....

Quote from: guido911 on October 10, 2013, 06:05:05 PM
Here's hoping for a continued government shutdown and default. Praying it will not be as devastating as the sequester turned out. I still haven't recovered from that calamity (from laughing).

Sean...Rush....is that you in there??  Still hoping for Obama failure??

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2013, 08:45:16 PM
Worked out pretty good for 25 years or so....but it is a pyramid scheme and will slow to a stop.  Probably sooner than later.

That's what is so infuriating to me. We get nothing but benefit from our current arrangement, and you're right, it will have to end someday. I'm not really sure why some seem so hell bent on ending it this month. And in a sudden and destructive manner rather than a calm and orderly manner, no less.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2013, 08:46:06 PM

Sean...Rush....is that you in there??  Still hoping for Obama failure??

WTH you talking about? I SUPPORTED Obama on Syria. I am just fed up over the damned fear mongering/crisis-driven government. Let the bad happen.

Quote from: guido911 on October 10, 2013, 11:04:28 PM
Let the bad happen.

Ok. What shall we cut. We can continue to fund Social Security and Medicare and pay military salaries and still have about $142 billion left over. What gets the axe? Say we manage to lop a third off Social Security and Medicare tomorrow by instituting means testing. That gets us an extra $50 billion a year, so say we've got $200 billion and interest on the debt miraculously manages to stay at the low levels it has been. What do we fund and what do we not fund?

This is not hypothetical. These are the hard choices we will be making by this time next month if the debt ceiling is not raised.

Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2013, 11:56:37 PM
Ok. What shall we cut. We can continue to fund Social Security and Medicare and pay military salaries and still have about $142 billion left over. What gets the axe? Say we manage to lop a third off Social Security and Medicare tomorrow by instituting means testing. That gets us an extra $50 billion a year, so say we've got $200 billion and interest on the debt miraculously manages to stay at the low levels it has been. What do we fund and what do we not fund?

This is not hypothetical. These are the hard choices we will be making by this time next month if the debt ceiling is not raised.

I am so tired of these "what would you cut" posts. It has been talked to death in here.

Quote from: guido911 on October 11, 2013, 04:16:49 AM
I am so tired of these "what would you cut" posts. It has been talked to death in here.

How about we start with anything "non-essential" and work our way up from there.  :D



(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7340/10205595293_6abbd0aca6_n.jpg)

Brilliant!
http://drunkdialcongress.org/

Quote from: Townsend on October 10, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1376555_10151959242260329_613804608_n.jpg)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7423/10207749503_c2980cd911.jpg)

No Quick Deal, but Offer by G.O.P. on Debt Shifts the Tone

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/us/politics/debt-limit-debate.html?_r=0#! (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/us/politics/debt-limit-debate.html?_r=0#!)

QuoteWASHINGTON — President Obama and House Republicans failed to reach agreement on a six-week extension of the nation's borrowing authority during a meeting Thursday at the White House, but the two sides kept talking, and the offer from politically besieged Republicans was seen as an initial step toward ending the budget standoff.

Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2013, 09:15:44 PM
That's what is so infuriating to me. We get nothing but benefit from our current arrangement, and you're right, it will have to end someday. I'm not really sure why some seem so hell bent on ending it this month. And in a sudden and destructive manner rather than a calm and orderly manner, no less.

I have been talking about that particular thing the whole time I have been here....  R  W  R  E  !!


The whole package of apocalyptic doomsday promotion...bring on the Armageddon!!

Quote from: guido911 on October 11, 2013, 04:16:49 AM
I am so tired of these "what would you cut" posts. It has been talked to death in here.

Ok, what would you keep?

Quote from: guido911 on October 10, 2013, 11:04:28 PM
WTH you talking about? I SUPPORTED Obama on Syria. I am just fed up over the damned fear mongering/crisis-driven government. Let the bad happen.

Kind of goes to the whole question - WHY would you have support that?  Are you one of those truly crazed extremists in this country that somehow believes that literally supporting the SAME people in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and now Syria - who have been killing our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan - versus just leaving the previous clowns alone is a good thing??

The story of Iraq, too.

I have never known a Catholic that was trying to "push" God into a corner to force His hand at bringing on Armageddon.  I guess they gotta exist...just never knew one....

Yep...let the bad happen...it's always the bottom half that takes the brunt - takes the biggest hit... "let them eat cake" !!

This blunt instrument of using the debt and the ACA to selfishly hold up the government needs to end. One way of doing that is to give them plenty of rope.
Once the crazies realize this tactic is too expensive to utilize they will move on. They have some masochistic delusions that they are helping us all by punishing most of us.

Quote from: AquaMan on October 14, 2013, 10:15:30 AM

Once the crazies realize this tactic is too expensive to utilize they will move on. They have some masochistic delusions that they are helping us all by punishing most of us.

Who knew aquaman was against Obamacare...

Comprehension problems still nagging at you eh? Or are you using the Texas/Palin/TP reality conversion kit. Free wherever you find good propaganda.  :D

Quote from: AquaMan on October 14, 2013, 08:21:26 PM
Comprehension problems still nagging at you eh? Or are you using the Texas/Palin/TP reality conversion kit. Free wherever you find good propaganda.  :D

My comprehension problems? Or your failure to see the irony. And a positive note, folks in here are no longer hanging Oklahoma out to dry and instead blaming Texas.

Defying authority is required when authority becomes corrupted.

Veterans (or as John Kerry calls them, "war criminals") tearing down the barrycades at the war memorials this weekend.  Makes you proud to be an American!
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3700/10290192346_583e307bea.jpg)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2815/10290065414_553080525b.jpg)

Quote from: AquaMan on October 14, 2013, 10:15:30 AM
This blunt instrument of using the debt and the ACA to selfishly hold up the government needs to end. One way of doing that is to give them plenty of rope.
Once the crazies realize this tactic is too expensive to utilize they will move on. They have some masochistic delusions that they are helping us all by punishing most of us.

Government shutdown backfires? GOP says Democrats now guilty of extortion

http://news.yahoo.com/government-shutdown-backfires-gop-says-democrats-now-guilty-133154607.html (http://news.yahoo.com/government-shutdown-backfires-gop-says-democrats-now-guilty-133154607.html)

QuoteFor the past few weeks, Democrats from the president on down decried Republican tactics on a potential government shutdown as political hostage-taking on a par with "extortion." So, of course, now that the Republicans are on the run, the Democrats are doing the exact same thing in reverse.

They're saying they want to undo major part of the sequester budget cuts as part of a deal to end the government shutdown and raise the debt limit. It's as though Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada has finally sensed his moment to destroy that product of tea party Republicanism once and for all. One might not even be surprised if "Ride of the Valkyries" was booming from his Senate office this morning.

That is how dramatically the story in Washington has flipped during the two weeks since the government shutdown.
On Oct. 1, the Republicans were on the offensive – or at least thought they were. Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas was at the front of the column, and the cry coming from his ranks was that they would stop at nothing to gut President Obama's signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act.
A government shutdown? A hit to the credit rating of the United States if Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling? Either was preferable to a new government entitlement that they said would erode American liberties and drive the country further into a potentially fatal debt crisis.

Inevitably, they failed, because they had nowhere near the numbers in Congress to win, and – despite their rhetoric – only a minority of Americans wanted to repeal Obamacare. Americans had already decided that question in the 2012 elections, and Republicans' failure to accept that rebuke meant they would receive it again this month. The Democrats, who knew all this, had not the slightest intention of yielding.

But now, members of the Republican establishment have abandoned their tea party insurgents for a more moderate position: They've offered to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling – both only temporarily – so that Congress can discuss reforming Social Security and Medicare.

Democrats, surely would wish for more. A temporary reprieve still holds a hint of "extortion" and still keeps Washington bumping from one fiscal crisis to the next. But, these days, such is the stuff of which compromises are made.

But Senator Reid is having none of it. He knows that polls show most Americans blaming Republicans for the current gridlock. And he knows that the Republican establishment absolutely, positively does not want the government to default on its debt. The tea party, with its grass-roots outrage, might be willing to stay firm on its debt-limit resolve, but establishment Republicans are much more likely to listen to Wall Street, and a failure to raise the debt limit could mean global financial chaos. Not good for 401(k)s.

So Reid is trying his hand at the "extortion" game. The Republicans can only save themselves if they get out of this mess, and he's the only Democrat in Congress who has the power to let that happen. So far, he's letting them dangle.

He now wants the Republicans to roll back parts of the sequester budget cuts agreed to during the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis. The sequester, however, happens to be the only tangible success of Congress's tea party era. Asking the Republicans to go back on the sequester cuts would be like asking the Democrats to go back on, say ... Obamacare.

Sound familiar?

"There's no question that House Republicans overreached in trying to use this negotiation to repeal a [health care] bill that was very central to the president's agenda,'' said Sen. Bob Corker (R) of Tennessee, according to The Wall Street Journal. "The same thing is happening on the Democratic side among Senate leadership as pushed by the White House. They're trying to now undo a law put in place in 2011, the Budget Control Act.''

Just like the Republicans didn't have the numbers in Congress to defund Obamacare, the Democrats don't have the numbers to eviscerate the sequester. Not if the Republicans hold firm as the Democrats have. And it's hard to imagine the Republican-controlled House surrendering so meekly, even in its current beaten and battered state.

In all likelihood, Reid is merely pressing his advantage to gain as much leverage as he can. An agreement before Oct. 17, the day Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling or risk default, now seems inevitable.

The real lesson here, it seems, is one of political perspective. In D.C., "extortion" is just politics by another name.

That's funny, the author of that screed seems to think the POTUS election in 2012 was a referendum on Obamacare.  Not even close.  He won because Obama's campaign resorted to portraying Romney as an out-of-touch elitist, tax cheat, and someone who had destroyed thousands and maybe even millions of jobs in his days as a vulture kapitalist.

Never mind that description could apply to Obama just as easily.  :D

Quote from: Gaspar on October 15, 2013, 07:31:27 AM
Defying authority is required when authority becomes corrupted.

Veterans (or as John Kerry calls them, "war criminals") tearing down the barrycades at the war memorials this weekend.  Makes you proud to be an American!

I certainly do like that....  All rules are meant to be gotten around!!

Does that sound a little bit anarchistic?  Or just plain ole' Libertarian-ish?

Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2013, 09:08:54 AM
That's funny, the author of that screed seems to think the POTUS election in 2012 was a referendum on Obamacare.  Not even close.  He won because Obama's campaign resorted to portraying Romney as an out-of-touch elitist, tax cheat, and someone who had destroyed thousands and maybe even millions of jobs in his days as a vulture kapitalist.

You mean by telling the truth... and most of the American people understood and voted accordingly... what a unique circumstance!!

Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2013, 09:08:54 AM
That's funny, the author of that screed seems to think the POTUS election in 2012 was a referendum on Obamacare.  Not even close.  He won because Obama's campaign resorted to portraying Romney as an out-of-touch elitist, tax cheat, and someone who had destroyed thousands and maybe even millions of jobs in his days as a vulture kapitalist.

v.s. The Never-ending Jobstopper.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2013, 09:08:54 AM
That's funny, the author of that screed seems to think the POTUS election in 2012 was a referendum on Obamacare.  Not even close.  He won because Obama's campaign resorted to portraying Romney as an out-of-touch elitist, tax cheat, and someone who had destroyed thousands and maybe even millions of jobs in his days as a vulture kapitalist.

Never mind that description could apply to Obama just as easily.  :D

Perception.  It's who you decide to favor or to whom you listen.

Romney had too many cra-cra's stumping for him only when they decided they had to.  It was horribly fake.  They hated him until he was the candidate.

Not enough people fell for the banana in the tailpipe to get him elected.

I had no dog.  My choice was made by voting against the people I saw as worse.  I knew we'd have a horrible outcome here in Oklahoma.

Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2013, 09:25:32 PM
And a positive note, folks in here are no longer hanging Oklahoma out to dry and instead blaming Texas.

Oklahoma will not be outdone; we have giant credit cards we can cut up on TV:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-9-2013/shutstorm-2013--america-sits-on-its-balls---colorful-analogies

Quote from: Gaspar on October 15, 2013, 07:31:27 AM
Defying authority is required when authority becomes corrupted.

Well it took you a while, but Im glad you finally came around.

(http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2011/11/tusla_pepper_spray_to_face2.jpg)

Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2013, 09:25:32 PM
My comprehension problems? Or your failure to see the irony. And a positive note, folks in here are no longer hanging Oklahoma out to dry and instead blaming Texas.

When it comes to crazy, Texas has it all over us. We got stupid down pat, but Texas raises the bar....

Louie Gohmert: A Debt Default Is 'An Impeachable Offense By The President'
The Huffington Post  |  By Ashley Alman   
Posted: 10/13/2013 7:50 pm EDT  |  Updated: 10/14/2013 2:59 pm EDTRep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) isn't sure whether he'll support a debt limit deal, but he is sure of one thing: a debt default would be President Barack Obama's fault.

A reporter for The Young Turks asked Gohmert whether he'd support a bill that would raise the debt ceiling at the Values Voter Summit on Friday.

"The word 'deal' concerns me," he said. "If it's good for America."

When asked whether he would allow the government to default on its debt, Gohmert projected the responsibility for such circumstances onto Obama.

"No," he said, "that would be an impeachable offense by the president."

Gohmert has continuously attempted to diffuse blame for a potential breach of the debt ceiling -- and the government shutdown -- as an Oct. 17 debt limit deadline looms...."

Texas isn't just better at football, look at these crazies that Texas representative and Tparty activist Palin riled up-

At a veteran-led rally that hit the World War II Memorial, the National Mall and the White House on Sunday, one tea party rallier had choice words for President Barack Obama, blaming him for the government shutdown and calling on him to step down.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, a conservative political advocacy group, said the country is "ruled by a president who bows down to Allah," and "is not a president of 'we the people.'"

"I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come up with his hands out," he said.

Klayman was joined by a group of veterans protesting the memorial closures that followed the government shutdown earlier this month. The demonstrators, who were met by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Alaska Gov Sarah Palin, pushed through the barriers at war memorials and carried the barricades back to the White House, Confederate flags in tow.

"Our vets have proven that they have not been timid," Palin said at the rally, "so we will not be timid in calling out any who would use our military, our vets, as pawns in a political game."

Cruz and Palin sittin' in a tree....

Quote from: AquaMan on October 15, 2013, 11:59:48 AM
When it comes to crazy, Texas has it all over us. We got stupid down pat, but Texas raises the bar....

Louie Gohmert: A Debt Default Is 'An Impeachable Offense By The President'
The Huffington Post  |  By Ashley Alman   
Posted: 10/13/2013 7:50 pm EDT  |  Updated: 10/14/2013 2:59 pm EDTRep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) isn't sure whether he'll support a debt limit deal, but he is sure of one thing: a debt default would be President Barack Obama's fault.

A reporter for The Young Turks asked Gohmert whether he'd support a bill that would raise the debt ceiling at the Values Voter Summit on Friday.

"The word 'deal' concerns me," he said. "If it's good for America."

When asked whether he would allow the government to default on its debt, Gohmert projected the responsibility for such circumstances onto Obama.

"No," he said, "that would be an impeachable offense by the president."

Gohmert has continuously attempted to diffuse blame for a potential breach of the debt ceiling -- and the government shutdown -- as an Oct. 17 debt limit deadline looms...."

Texas isn't just better at football, look at these crazies that Texas representative and Tparty activist Palin riled up-

At a veteran-led rally that hit the World War II Memorial, the National Mall and the White House on Sunday, one tea party rallier had choice words for President Barack Obama, blaming him for the government shutdown and calling on him to step down.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, a conservative political advocacy group, said the country is "ruled by a president who bows down to Allah," and "is not a president of 'we the people.'"

"I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come up with his hands out," he said.

Klayman was joined by a group of veterans protesting the memorial closures that followed the government shutdown earlier this month. The demonstrators, who were met by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Alaska Gov Sarah Palin, pushed through the barriers at war memorials and carried the barricades back to the White House, Confederate flags in tow.

"Our vets have proven that they have not been timid," Palin said at the rally, "so we will not be timid in calling out any who would use our military, our vets, as pawns in a political game."

Cruz and Palin sittin' in a tree....

Wow, so this knucklehead was elected to the HOTR, and he doesn't know that it's his branch that controls the pursestrings?

Yep, Texas has ventured into the stupid.  They deserve what they get.

Maybe they can elect Mack Brown next.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2013, 09:08:54 AM
That's funny, the author of that screed seems to think the POTUS election in 2012 was a referendum on Obamacare.

Kind of like 2004 wasn't a referendum on the Iraq War, right?  ::)

Romney's main line of attack was fear about Obamacare. If it was that important to the electorate, they would have picked Romney.

Quote from: nathanm on October 15, 2013, 12:39:22 PM
Kind of like 2004 wasn't a referendum on the Iraq War, right?  ::)

Romney's main line of attack was fear about Obamacare. If it was that important to the electorate, they would have picked Romney.

And the funny thing?  Obamacare is essentially what Romney put forth in Mass.  "Obamneycare".

Quote from: Hoss on October 15, 2013, 12:13:13 PM
Wow, so this knucklehead was elected to the HOTR, and he doesn't know that it's his branch that controls the pursestrings?

Yep, Texas has ventured into the stupid.  They deserve what they get.

Maybe they can elect Mack Brown next.

I love that the house and senate not passing a bill is impeachable. Easy way to get rid of any president LOL.

Great optics there, by the way, waving Confederate flags in front of a black man's house.  Let me guess, next time they'll bring crosses and set them on fire. ::)

Good to see the House hasn't lost its nerve. Now they're talking about passing a bill and immediately leaving town so the Senate is forced to accept it as is. What are they, 12, with their ding dong ditch plan? On the bright side, they probably won't be able to pass anything.

Quote from: nathanm on October 15, 2013, 01:39:37 PM

Good to see the House hasn't lost its nerve. Now they're talking about passing a bill and immediately leaving town so the Senate is forced to accept it as is. What are they, 12, with their ding dong ditch plan? On the bright side, they probably won't be able to pass anything.

No unanimous consent going to be there so there'll have to be a 30 hour debate.

No way Cruz is going to go for it.

Quote from: nathanm on October 15, 2013, 12:39:22 PM
Kind of like 2004 wasn't a referendum on the Iraq War, right?  ::)

Romney's main line of attack was fear about Obamacare. If it was that important to the electorate, they would have picked Romney.

If it had been a referendum on the Iraq War, John Kerry would have been the 44th president of the US.  Instead Democrats complained that Kerry was "swift boated", he was assailed as being a flip-flopper, and that's why they lost the White House that year.  Remember?  It was personal attacks that cost Kerry that election.  At least that was the excuse of Kerry and his supporters.

Obama didn't run on his accomplishments, he had very little to be proud of as an incumbent president seeking reelection.  He did exactly what he  accused McCain of doing in 2008: "When you don't have a record of your own to run on, you make your opponent look like someone to run from."  (loosely paraphrased).

My remembrance of them past elections was different.

John Kerry was a terrible candidate. He had been in the Senate so long that he spoke like a Senator, not a real person. He just wasn't likable.

I think Romney just wasn't trustworthy. The whole refusal to release tax records really hurt him.

The next President better be likable and honest about their money.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 15, 2013, 03:59:11 PM


The next President better be likable and honest about their money.

Probably be helpful if they weren't associated with perceived nut jobs.  I saw that Palin's climbed out of her fur lined bouncy cell.

Quote from: Townsend on October 15, 2013, 04:54:33 PM
Probably be helpful if they weren't associated with perceived nut jobs.  I saw that Palin's climbed out of her fur lined bouncy cell.

With crib-notes on hand...err....yeah.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 15, 2013, 03:59:11 PM
My remembrance of them past elections was different.

John Kerry was a terrible candidate. He had been in the Senate so long that he spoke like a Senator, not a real person. He just wasn't likable.

I think Romney just wasn't trustworthy. The whole refusal to release tax records really hurt him.

The next President better be likable and honest about their money.

Vote for me!  I will let the Bush tax cuts lapse, like they should have already.  I will fix the gun show loophole problem - will require law abiding citizens to keep firearms in their homes for self defense - like the Swiss used to do.  Will restart the draft so we have citizen soldiers like for the first 200 years of the country.  And since I have probably less money than the average around here, I will accept every paycheck that the government issues me and truly enjoy and be thankful for the pension that accrues to the position.  And first order of business is to fix the mess that is the so-called "Patriot Act".  Not gonna release any tax returns - it would be just way to embarrassing for me that everyone knows how little I have made as an engineer.

And NO Sharia law will ever encroach upon our courts anywhere, anytime!

Other than that, people - enjoy your lives as free Americans!  Don't intrude on my rights and I won't intrude on yours!  (Remember, I would have the IRS working for me...)

GOP Senator says deal reached to reopen government; raise debt ceiling.

http://www.newson6.com/story/23706394/senator-says-deal-in-hand-to-avoid-default

(http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/parkclosed2_large.jpg) 

Business Insider says:

http://www.businessinsider.com/house-republicans-show-themselves-to-be-dangerously-incompetent-again-2013-10


Like we didn't already know that....

Of course the bill to reopen government wasn't without a few ticks and fleas:

QuoteSo much for a "clean" bill. The measure passed by Congress to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling also contains some goodies and gifts tucked into the 35-page bill.

There's more money -- a lot more -- for a dam project on the Ohio River and millions of cash for Colorado flooding repair projects. And the wealthy widow of a late U.S. senator will receive a year's pay as a death benefit.

You have to hand it to a Congress that finds no bill is off limits for pork.

"These people are like alcoholics. They can't resist taking a drink. It's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous," said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona to the Daily Beast, referring to the dam project. "It shows that there are people in this body who are willing to use any occasion to get an outrageous pork-barrel project done at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. It's disgusting."

Here are five most surprising provisions to the bill:

1. RIVER PROJECT

Kentucky kickback?: $2.2 billion. That's the amount in additional cash authorized for a project that involved a dam and decades-old locks on a river that flows through Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's home state of Kentucky. Sounds kinda fishy, but a Democratic senate aid and a Republican senator say it's on the level. The aide tells CNN that McConnell didn't push for the project to be included. And Sen. Lamar Alexander, who's a key figure on the committee that oversees what water projects get what money, says he and another senator asked for the cash. He tells CNN's Chris Frates the new money -- which more than triples the original $775 million -- will save the federal government many millions because contracts won't be canceled due to work stoppages. Still, the Senate Conservatives Fund calls the money a "Kentucky Kickback."

2. FLOOD RECOVERY FUNDS

Bridge to somewhere: This one's a lot less controversial than the river project money. Congress OK'd $450 million for rebuilding projects in flood-struck areas of Colorado. That's well over the limit of $100 million for the Department of Transportation as allowed in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Wednesday's authorization used similar language to a bill that died last month after the House declined to vote on it, according to Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado. He said Coloradans had been resilient, but they needed the money because "it's time to let us get to work" rebuilding roads and bridges wiped out by overflowing rivers.


3. LATE SENATOR'S WIDOW

For decades of service: Frank Lautenberg served in the Senate for almost 30 years. He died in June of viral pneumonia. This nation owed him a great deal. Congress has almost always approved a death benefit gift to the family equal to one year's salary, which they provided for Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie, in the bill. The thing is ... Lautenberg was one of the richest members of Congress and was worth more than $59 million as of 2011, according to The Hill. You can see why some people think it might not be a terrible thing to forgo $174,000 to the family.

4. OTHER WINNERS

Ssssh, we're getting a big check: There were more agencies that got big money in the bill. Agencies that fight wildfires could get as much as $636 million, depending on how bad it gets in the next year. The mine safety department is getting a bump in the fees it can keep, a $1 million increase to $2.49 million. A watchdog group meant to guard Americans' right to privacy against overreach by government cyberintelligence will get $3.1 million, which they could use considering the year they've had dealing with revelations about the super-secret National Security Agency's programs. The Hill, a political newspaper, reports that's double the top amount the five-member panel has been given before.

5. SAME PAY FOR CONGRESS

No raise this year: Down on page 20 of the bill, it says there will be no cost of living adjustment for members of Congress for the next year. Actually, it's not that surprising. Congressional pay has held steady for years. They last received a raise four years ago. And you thought you had it rough. Wait, you don't make $174,000 a year?

I figured someone would bring up the dam project. Apparently a lot of journalists don't understand the difference between an authorization and an appropriation. Authorization, which is what the dam project did, essentially says "we'll spend this money some time, plan for it to be this much." No money flows until the appropriation happens.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board gets "double" its last appropriation because it's actually becoming operational now. It has to pay for office space and (a few) admin positions, buy IT equipment, and whatever else is involved in opening up a new office.

I am annoyed that after all the talk of a clean CR they put other smile in it. I would have given them a complete pass if it were just the money for rebuilding washed out roads and the extra firefighting reserve funds, both are needed. The rest could have waited.

Interesting how the article doesn't mention that the Republicans did get something out of the deal, too: Income verification prior to getting the exchange's advance tax credit instead of it being adjusted at tax time if you turn out to have estimated incorrectly. I don't think it matters much, but it will be duplicated effort on the part of the IRS. They still have to do the calculations with your final income each year, after all. Who knows, the interest we save on the advance credit might be more than the cost of however many million income verifications. (probably not much either way)

Quote from: nathanm on October 18, 2013, 12:56:28 AM
I am annoyed that after all the talk of a clean CR they put other smile in it.

Define "clean".

;D

Was anyone laughing over the R poll numbers following the shut down? This should be a hoot....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/13/fox-news-poll-republicans-regain-ground-on-congressional-ballot/

That was sure quick....And Obama is cratering. But Congress sucks as a whole, so there is that... ::)



And polls still suck.