Obama slams Republicans for threat to blow up entire economy

[Ian]

All the republicans had to vote on was the budget. Spent money. These piecemeal measures are just handwaving, theater. They know Obama will not sign them.

Well, then, it's Obama who is being obstructionist isn't it? The House has every right to piecemeal appropriations. It's not even required to produce a budget, much less one that the President wants. The House makes appropriations and submits them to the Senate and President for approval. That's how it works. They want to do their job, but Obama won't negotiate on anything. Therefore he's to blame.

Wrong.

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

Just because something is constitutionally legal doesn't mean it's reasonable. The Republicans are the irrational ones here. This whole thing is their stunt. Therefore, they're to blame.

[Seth]

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...

That's because they are ignorant of our system, being good little proletarian drones who do as they are told and have never taken a stand against political repression and injustice.

Many of us like a non-functioning central government. It means they aren't fucking us over for a moment in time.

[Seth]

All the republicans had to vote on was the budget. Spent money. These piecemeal measures are just handwaving, theater. They know Obama will not sign them.

Well, then, it's Obama who is being obstructionist isn't it? The House has every right to piecemeal appropriations. It's not even required to produce a budget, much less one that the President wants. The House makes appropriations and submits them to the Senate and President for approval. That's how it works. They want to do their job, but Obama won't negotiate on anything. Therefore he's to blame.

Wrong.

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?

The same thing, as intended.

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

Yes.

Just because something is constitutionally legal doesn't mean it's reasonable.

Just because you think, for your own political and economic reasons, that something is "unreasonable" doesn't mean it is.

The Republicans are the irrational ones here. This whole thing is their stunt. Therefore, they're to blame.

All Obama and the democrat party have to do to end this is sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith, which they are refusing to do, therefore they are to blame.

[Seth]

Democrats aren't the ones infested by a large faction of radicals.

You're partly right, they aren't infested by radicals, the ARE the infestation of radicals in government that's destroying the Republic.

Where's the Orkin man when you need him?

[Seabass]

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!

[Robert_S]

Democrats aren't the ones infested by a large faction of radicals.

You're partly right, they aren't infested by radicals, the ARE the infestation of radicals in government that's destroying the Republic.

Where's the Orkin man when you need him?

\

LOL. The Tea Party's day are numbered. The Republican's will blink. Obama's biggest mistake was keeping his promise to try to negotiate in good faith in the beginning.

Like their predecessors: the scribes and Pharisees did before, these serpent Teabaggers slither around the letter and do all they can to choke the spirit.

[Tero]

Congress had a tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011
and used it in January. Why wait till now to bring up further demands?

[JimC]

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 outsiders who are your enemies are grinning like lunatics.

The outsiders who are your friends are shaking their heads with disbelief and disappointment...

Your use of the term "outsider" is significant; it shows clearly that view which could be described as "America is the universe"...

[piscator]

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

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.

[Seth]

Congress had a tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011
and used it in January. Why wait till now to bring up further demands?

Because that was a one-time bill.

But they could do the same thing again, and I'm betting they will. Of course the real problem is that they can't trust Obama to do what he says he will do, because he's a pathological liar.

So they have to be more careful when dealing with him than before and get it all down in writing first. No oral agreements at all.

And the democrat party knows this, knows that the House doesn't trust them to do as they promise, which is why the House is holding firm for a signed bill.

No more credit for Obama.

[Seabass]

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 outsiders who are your enemies are grinning like lunatics.

The outsiders who are your friends are shaking their heads with disbelief and disappointment...

Your use of the term "outsider" is significant; it shows clearly that view which could be described as "America is the universe"...

Oh, sorry. I guess I should have said "the rest of the world", or "international observers". 'Cause that's totally different.

[Seth]

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.

[piscator]

All the republicans had to vote on was the budget. Spent money. These piecemeal measures are just handwaving, theater. They know Obama will not sign them.

Well, then, it's Obama who is being obstructionist isn't it? The House has every right to piecemeal appropriations. It's not even required to produce a budget, much less one that the President wants. The House makes appropriations and submits them to the Senate and President for approval. That's how it works. They want to do their job, but Obama won't negotiate on anything. Therefore he's to blame.

Wrong.

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

Just because something is constitutionally legal doesn't mean it's reasonable. The Republicans are the irrational ones here. This whole thing is their stunt. Therefore, they're to blame.

QFT. Them and the douchebags who voted for chaos, mostly for racist reasons and because they want to justify the expense of 10k rounds of ammo and a basement full of canned goods.

[piscator]

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.

[pErvinalia]

No such law would pass this week, Coito. It would show that Gubment workers are necessary. Tea Partiers want 0 government federally. In states, minimally.

To protect the borders they just need Seth and a militia of unpaid gun nuts.

See above, the House unanimously passed exactly that law -- to pay people for the furloughed time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

I mean - why the FUCK didn't some sane Congressman suggest we just send them back to work for their normal wages. What the fuck?

So, the Republicans and Democrats unanimously agree that we ought not simply send them back to do their jobs, but rather we ought to let them stay home, but pay them anyway. Can there be anything more low-down and rotten than this? Both parties ought to be ashamed.

The Coit has a point.