Obama slams Republicans for threat to blow up entire economy

[pErvinalia]

Yes. Them sitting at home makes sense to both parties. Now we need politicians to "solve" a problem that they created.

They want to feel important for 10 more days.

Now you see why I just prefer having less government. This is what we get when we think government will solve our problems for us and take care of us.

This isn't an argument for less government, it's an argument for a better system.

[pErvinalia]

Here's a better analogy: a mugger has a gun to your head and threatens to shoot if you don't give him your car keys. You don't believe he'll really do it, so you yell back to put down the gun. So he starts yelling louder to give up your car keys.

Does this mean two sides are squabbling on equal terms?

If the mugger shoots, are both sides equally to blame for the outcome?

I'm sure that's the way Obama supporters will see it in the US (and I may have some personal sympathy for that viewpoint)

But I was making a different point; the partisan positions are not important to most international observers, who simply see a country paralysed by internal political turmoil...

What's that? You mean outsiders will paint us all with the same broad brush and sneer down their superior noses at us. Say it ain't so!

The French, particularly, are doing so..

[pErvinalia]

There is not, nor should there be any guarantee of wages without work anywhere in our economy

Regardless of what your political religion tells you, lots of people get paid not to work, most in the private sector.

Such as? Specifically?

I've been paid, and paid well, not to bid on contracts.

So, you were paid for working yourself into a position that posed an economic threat to a competitor, who agreed to pay you for that work for not bidding against them. Nice try though.

I am also often paid retainers to endeavor to make myself available within a reasonable time should a need arise.

So you are being paid to work by holding yourself available should your services be needed.

Again, nice try, but...fail.

But let's talk about Malden Mills, the inventors of Polartec fleece. When their mill burned to the ground, they paid their furloughed employees full wages while they rebuilt. They wanted to retain good people, and their good place in the community. Something they certainly accomplished.

So, the workers received a paycheck as compensation for not seeking other employment based on their past work history and their future anticipated profit benefit to the company.

Sorry, fail again.

See, you're choosing to look upon it that way. I choose to look upon it as providing you examples of being paid not to work.

If it's a matter of subjective viewpoints, then so was your sweeping normative statement that 'no one is or ought to be compensated for not toiling'. Hence rhetorical. A matter of your choice rather than grounded in hard fact.

One's choice to "Be Libertarian" is like one's choice to "Be a rocker!", ultimately as superficial as a haircut or some eye makeup.
You could just as easily choose to see furloughed Federal employee pay as, "holding themselves available should their services be needed" or, "not seeking other employment based on their past work history and their future anticipated benefit to the country", but you simply choose to look at it another way.


tl;dr: Your rhetorical stance here is simple aesthetics, statements of personal preferences, superficial.

[Warren Dew]

What's going to happen when a Democratic House demands that half the Pentagon's funding be cut in half in exchange for sending through the rest of the budget?

Then it gets cut in half.

If the Republican Senate and Republican President refuse to consider such a threat proposal, are they the ones being obstructionist?

If they're not making counterproposals that involve their compromising - such as, say, "cut it by a quarter instead of half" - then yes, they're the ones being obstructionist in that case.

[Ian]

Yeah, I'm sure a Republican Senate and President would see half the Pentagon budget as a reasonable compromise. Sure they would. Brilliant.
Warren, if you believe "then it gets cut in half" to be realistic, then you don't understand politics even half as much as I thought you did. I'll assume that you were just throwing out empty rhetoric, because that's all it is.
Besides, the "let's just cut it a quarter" compromise of your scenario assumes that the Democratic House would settle for that. What if they wouldn't?


And what might the Democrats offer in this case? Another delay of Obamacare? Where, exactly, do you see room for negotiation - with House Republicans demanding outright defunding? Unlike your wishful thinking scenario above, they're not offering room for a deal.

"Gee whiz, all they have to do is repeal or defund their signature domestic achievement and everything will be just fine!" Right.

This is 100% a Republican stunt, and it probably didn't even occur to most of them that it might backfire on them disastrously. They certainly haven't offered any negotiation, but they've convinced guys like you (shocking!) that it's the Democrats who are obstructionist. A faction of the GOP within one half of Congress has used threat and ransom to shut everything down unless their opponents do what they want. They obviously don't give a crap about democracy, or about how many people might be hurt, or about how stupid the whole country looks to the rest of the world, or how much they're monkeying with the economy. They didn't have to send up a cooked budget like that, but they did... knowing full well that the Senate and the President would never just repeal the law. This shutdown has been planned for a long while, and you can make what you will of the endgame strategy they were expecting. Blame Democrats for being obstructionist all you want, but an unreasonable demand is unreasonable. And giving in to it would only legitimize the tactics of extortion.

Your. Guys. Lost.

They lost badly in 2008.
They gave up the chance to be a part of health care reform in 2009 and chose to try to block it outright instead.
Then they lost the fight to stop health care reform in 2010.
They lost the chance to retake the Presidency in 2012 - also badly.
They lost the Supreme Court case in 2013.
They lost all forty-odd attempts to repeal it over the last few years.

So what do they do now? Throw a temper tantrum. Cripple the rest of the government. Threaten to smash the economy. And of course, blame the Democrats for not doing things their way.

[Warren Dew]

Warren, if you believe "then it gets cut in half" to be realistic, then you don't understand politics even half as much as I thought you did.

Actually, it's your scenario that's inconsistent with any real understanding of politics. The Democrats are nearly as invested in the military industrial complex as the Republicans are, and the idea they would ever try to cut defense spending in half is exceptionally naive. Even Ted Kennedy never voted against a defense appropriations bill.

Besides, the "let's just cut it a quarter" compromise of your scenario assumes that the Democratic House would settle for that. What if they wouldn't?

Then the situation would no longer be at all parallel to the present situation, where the House has proposed numerous compromises.

And what might the Democrats offer in this case? Another delay of Obamacare? Where, exactly, do you see room for negotiation - with House Republicans demanding outright defunding? Unlike your wishful thinking scenario above, they're not offering room for a deal.

"Gee whiz, all they have to do is repeal or defund their signature domestic achievement and everything will be just fine!" Right.

By your logic, Obama has already gutted his own "signature domestic achievement" by delaying Obamacare by a year for big business. The truth is, Obama could easily extend that delay to small businesses and individuals in return for full funding of the rest of Obamacare, a deal that Boehner has indicated he'd accept.

Unfortunately, Obama cares more about political appearances than his actual job of governing, so he doesn't want that perfectly reasonable compromise because he is afraid of appearing weak to his base. And Harry Reid can't afford to compromise at all because he knows as soon as the Senate starts compromising, all the pork that is in the current budget - and in the continuing resolution he's so adamant about - will be put on the chopping block, which will be the end of the gravy train.

Your. Guys. Lost.

Your continued whinging proves otherwise. The Republicans won the House in 2010 and 2012, which is why they're in a position now to cut back on government excess. You're just not willing to accept that reality yet.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I'm sure a Republican Senate and President would see half the Pentagon budget as a reasonable compromise. Sure they would. Brilliant.
Warren, if you believe "then it gets cut in half" to be realistic, then you don't understand politics even half as much as I thought you did. I'll assume that you were just throwing out empty rhetoric, because that's all it is.
Besides, the "let's just cut it a quarter" compromise of your scenario assumes that the Democratic House would settle for that. What if they wouldn't?


And what might the Democrats offer in this case? Another delay of Obamacare? Where, exactly, do you see room for negotiation - with House Republicans demanding outright defunding? Unlike your wishful thinking scenario above, they're not offering room for a deal.

"Gee whiz, all they have to do is repeal or defund their signature domestic achievement and everything will be just fine!" Right.

This is 100% a Republican stunt, and it probably didn't even occur to most of them that it might backfire on them disastrously. They certainly haven't offered any negotiation, but they've convinced guys like you (shocking!) that it's the Democrats who are obstructionist. A faction of the GOP within one half of Congress has used threat and ransom to shut everything down unless their opponents do what they want. They obviously don't give a crap about democracy, or about how many people might be hurt, or about how stupid the whole country looks to the rest of the world, or how much they're monkeying with the economy. They didn't have to send up a cooked budget like that, but they did... knowing full well that the Senate and the President would never just repeal the law. This shutdown has been planned for a long while, and you can make what you will of the endgame strategy they were expecting. Blame Democrats for being obstructionist all you want, but an unreasonable demand is unreasonable. And giving in to it would only legitimize the tactics of extortion.

Your. Guys. Lost.

They lost badly in 2008.
They gave up the chance to be a part of health care reform in 2009 and chose to try to block it outright instead.
Then they lost the fight to stop health care reform in 2010.
They lost the chance to retake the Presidency in 2012 - also badly.
They lost the Supreme Court case in 2013.
They lost all forty-odd attempts to repeal it over the last few years.

So what do they do now? Throw a temper tantrum. Cripple the rest of the government. Threaten to smash the economy. And of course, blame the Democrats for not doing things their way.

[Seth]

See, you're choosing to look upon it that way. I choose to look upon it as providing you examples of being paid not to work.

If it's a matter of subjective viewpoints, then so was your sweeping normative statement that 'no one is or ought to be compensated for not toiling'. Hence rhetorical. A matter of your choice rather than grounded in hard fact.

Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "working." In this context I think it's pretty clear that the difference between you getting paid not to bid on a job and a government worker on furlough is not simply a matter of semantics.

In your case, your actions (in deciding and agreeing not to bid, which requires effort) result in someone profiting from that labor. Yes, cognition is labor, and you had to evaluate the offer in order to make the decision that it would be in your financial interest not to bid, which may require substantial research on your part in addition to analysis of your financial interests. That's work. It's labor. It may be intellectual labor. It may be easy labor, but there is labor involved nonetheless, and your labor generated profits for you, which is compensation for your work.

A government worker on furlough is not performing any labor or work resulting in any profit to anyone or entitling him to compensation.

One's choice to "Be Libertarian" is like one's choice to "Be a rocker!", ultimately as superficial as a haircut or some eye makeup.
You could just as easily choose to see furloughed Federal employee pay as, "holding themselves available should their services be needed" or, "not seeking other employment based on their past work history and their future anticipated benefit to the country", but you simply choose to look at it another way.

No, I look at it in the only possible rational way. A government worker sent home on furlough is not performing any compensable labor that provides any value to the taxpayers who are his employers. He's on his own personal time doing as he pleases, so he deserves no compensation from us for his leisure time.

The fact that he was sent home when he would prefer to be working, and is willing to work, is irrelevant. If the People do not need or want his services, then he's not entitled to be compensated for anything.

[Seth]

Yeah, I'm sure a Republican Senate and President would see half the Pentagon budget as a reasonable compromise. Sure they would. Brilliant.

What you or I think they might or might not do is utterly irrelevant. What's at issue is who has what lawful authority to legislate and how.

Besides, the "let's just cut it a quarter" compromise of your scenario assumes that the Democratic House would settle for that. What if they wouldn't?

Then something else would happen.

And what might the Democrats offer in this case? Another delay of Obamacare? Where, exactly, do you see room for negotiation - with House Republicans demanding outright defunding? Unlike your wishful thinking scenario above, they're not offering room for a deal.

Er, that's not what they are demanding at all. But if it were, it's their absolute constitutional right to do so, and to hold the budget and debt ceiling hostage to their demands because that's the authority the Constitution grants them.

"Gee whiz, all they have to do is repeal or defund their signature domestic achievement and everything will be just fine!" Right.

it's a start. Next is a hundred years of other Progressive horseshit. But we'll settle for Obamacare right now...because we can.

This is 100% a Republican stunt, and it probably didn't even occur to most of them that it might backfire on them disastrously.

It's not a stunt, it's deadly serious politics. And it absolutely occurred to them that it might backfire, which is why they are playing the game very carefully by agreeing to fund the government, or at least the essential parts of it. They brilliantly hit the ball back into Obama's court and now he and Reid have to figure out how to keep it from morphing into a tar-baby they can't get free of.

They certainly haven't offered any negotiation,

Wrong. They have offered to negotiate many times, and they have been doing their job by passing bills to fund government and forwarding them to the Senate, where they languish.

but they've convinced guys like you (shocking!) that it's the Democrats who are obstructionist.

Doesn't take much convincing since it's the truth.

A faction of the GOP within one half of Congress has used threat and ransom to shut everything down unless their opponents do what they want.

So? That's politics. Obama has done the same thing.

They obviously don't give a crap about democracy, or about how many people might be hurt, or about how stupid the whole country looks to the rest of the world, or how much they're monkeying with the economy.

They care about the people so much that they are willing to take a stand, finally, against the democrat steamroller and Marxist President who are destroying this country. They understand that it may be painful to excise the cancer, but it's necessary if the Republic is to survive.

They didn't have to send up a cooked budget like that, but they did... knowing full well that the Senate and the President would never just repeal the law.

I guess Obama and Reid should have thought of that before ramming Obamacare down our throats in the first place. Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

This shutdown has been planned for a long while, and you can make what you will of the endgame strategy they were expecting.

Yup. Ever since Obama and the democrat party abused their authority and rammed Obamacare though Congress. I remember writing about this when the mid-terms gave the House to the Republicans.

Blame Democrats for being obstructionist all you want, but an unreasonable demand is unreasonable.

It's a starting place for negotiation.

And giving in to it would only legitimize the tactics of extortion.

And not giving in to a legitimate and intended constitutional check and balance would be idiocy.

Your. Guys. Lost.

And. Then. We. Won.

They lost badly in 2008.
They gave up the chance to be a part of health care reform in 2009 and chose to try to block it outright instead.
Then they lost the fight to stop health care reform in 2010.
They lost the chance to retake the Presidency in 2012 - also badly.
They lost the Supreme Court case in 2013.
They lost all forty-odd attempts to repeal it over the last few years.

But we won control of the budget and debt ceiling, the debt ceiling provisions, and the sequester, being Obama's idea in the first place, which he agreed to in order to put off the challenge till after the next presidential election to enhance his chances of being elected, which worked. Unfortunately for him, and you, we, the People, decided to take budgetary power away from the democrat party because of their shenanigans and broken promises.

So, neener, neener, neener, we hold the purse strings and y'all can go fuck yourselves until Obama and the democrat party decide to engage the process and negotiate.

So what do they do now? Throw a temper tantrum. Cripple the rest of the government. Threaten to smash the economy. And of course, blame the Democrats for not doing things their way.

That's politics for you. The democrat party has done exactly the same thing in the past, and would do exactly the same thing if they were on the other side right now.

Sucks to be a gummint employee, doesn't it?

[Coito ergo sum]

This shutdown is being presented to us as if it is unprecedented. It isn't. There have been 17 "shutdowns" since 1976 with budget disputes.

The first 14 involved Democratic Congresses, and Republican Presidents. The Democrats, we will recall, controlled Congress from World War 2 through the so-called "Conservative Revolution" in the 1990s. There was a solid 50 years of Democrat majority. Naturally, of course, Democrats think their party had nothing to do with the state of the nation.

Much of the problem here is the change in media coverage and the 24-7 spotlight that politicians are under. Now, sensational headlines are needed constantly, so a disagreement becomes a "stand-off" or "contest of leadership."

Moreover, the non-American head-shaking over this "shutdown" is misplaced. The shutdown isn't really a "shutdown." The US government is operating. About 17 percent of workers have been furloughed. Initially it may have been as high as 30% but the Pentagon called back half the furloughed workers, so now the number is down to about 15 or 17%. The effect on the US economy is very small.

These are "nonessential" workers. That means that essential tasks get done, which is plenty.

In other words, folks from across the respective ponds -- this ain't as big 'a deal as ya'll seem to think.

The shit about the parks and monuments is smoke-and-mirrors. It is something the Administration is doing to show negative effects of the shutdown to the public. It's emotional stuff. "Oh, my god!!! Veterans are being blocked from seeing the World War 2 Memorial! Oh, the Humanity!" And, the Republicans point their greasy fingers at the Democrats and say "How DARE you!" and the Democrats point their greasy fingers at the Republicans and say "See what you made us do!"

This whole charade is pathetic. Keep it shut down, for all anyone should care. There is definitely 20% that can be cut out of the government nearly across the board. Just jettison those employees and make do with 20% less, like the average American has had to do over the last 5-6 years. And, Congress ought to get a 20% cut in pay immediately, if they're lucky.

I feel like we'll soon have a modern day Caligula appoint Incitatus a Consul....

[Audley Strange]

Come on guys, if the Reps genuinely wanted to win the Presidency they would have been better off picking a horse rather than Romney or McCain. The Democrats didn't want to win either, that's why the picked a relatively unknown Black Guy. The last two elections have been essentially "who can we pick that will be so unpopular we don't have to fix the escalating mess." for both sides. Same here and by the looks of it everywhere else too.

[Coito ergo sum]

The government is shutdown, but they're buying mechanical bulls -- http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/n ... n-3976293/

And, if you're espousing the "correct" politics, you can still have your rally on the national mall -- http://washingtonexaminer.com/park-serv ... le/2536908

The whole thing is weapons grade horse shit.

"Based on estimates drawn from CBO and OMB data, 83 percent of government operations will continue.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wheres-se ... le/2536862

[Tyrannical]

What's going to happen when a Democratic House demands that half the Pentagon's funding be cut in half in exchange for sending through the rest of the budget?

President Rand Paul would sign it into law, that's what would happen

[Coito ergo sum]

What's going to happen when a Democratic House demands that half the Pentagon's funding be cut in half in exchange for sending through the rest of the budget?

President Rand Paul would sign it into law, that's what would happen

Wouldn't all Democrats support that? I thought the Bush era military budget increases were unnecessary, weren't they?

[Tero]

If the Bush war was unnecessary so then yes.