What? No government shutdown threads?

[First]

Keep shoveling shit.

lol you're doing a fine job of it, kid.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually my point is that Democrats have never done such a thing, which is true.

My additional (and far more important) point is that if Obama gives into this Democrats WILL do this in the future, which is a terrible thing.

I understand that changing any aspect of his signature legislation is off-limits...I get that and please know that I hope it gets implemented as soon as possible. The closest equivalence I've found is Dems demanding reinstatement of Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately they lost that battle. The reality is that Republicans would have never conceded that demand...just as Democrats would never concede an inch on ACA. Most every other debt ceiling battle was related to spending issues which were largely resolved by negotiation. People act as if this "holding the debt ceiling hostage" tactic has never been used by Democrats which is total BS as they've done it many, many times.

Tell me something...are you OK with Obama compromising on a spending issue in order to get past this deadlock?

 

[xBiffx]

lol you're doing a fine job of it, kid.

No one told you to get up off your knees, bitch.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand that changing any aspect of his signature legislation is off-limits...I get that and please know that I hope it gets implemented as soon as possible. The closest equivalence I've found is Dems demanding reinstatement of Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately they lost that battle. The reality is that Republicans would have never conceded that demand...just as Democrats would never concede an inch on ACA. Most every other debt ceiling battle was related to spending issues which were largely resolved by negotiation. People act as if this "holding the debt ceiling hostage" tactic has never been used by Democrats which is total BS as they've done it many, many times.

Tell me something...are you OK with Obama compromising on a spending issue in order to get past this deadlock?

I would be fine if there was a bipartisan agreement on fiscal policy to resolve this. That will mean a republican offer that includes tax increases or some other such concession on their part. While I think further spending cuts are foolish, there is a big difference between a policy I don't like and a situation that I think threatens effective governance.

The thing I object to is the extortion and hostage taking, not spending compromise. What is often overlooked by the way is that democrats already accepted sequester level spending in the CR they passed, despite how objectionable it is.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Rumblings that Obama might punk out and capitulate to the GOP in order to avoid the debt ceiling

 

[First]

No one told you to get up off your knees, bitch.

Your gay fantasies aren't relevant, cock gobbler.

 

[xBiffx]

Your gay fantasies aren't relevant, cock gobbler.

Says the one bringing up the gay fantasy. ROFL.

 

[IronWing]

Says the one bringing up the gay fantasy. ROFL.

You're breaking character.

 

[cubby1223]

The thing I object to is the extortion and hostage taking, not spending compromise. What is often overlooked by the way is that democrats already accepted sequester level spending in the CR they passed, despite how objectionable it is.

These are the only times when Obama & Reid are open to actually listening.

If the two sides were capable of working together, we wouldn't be in this position. But they are not. The choice is between either (1) full Democratic control of the federal government despite Republicans having the majority in the house, or (2) these kinds of situations around major items of legislation.

You feel the first option is more tolerable than the second, while others feel the second option is more tolerable than the first. Neither options are perfect, but those are the only options available.

 

[First]

Says the one bringing up the gay fantasy. ROFL.

Nah, you're not good at joking. Lay off the dick.

 

[Lash444]

Don't touch the ACA or if you do...make it something stupidly trivial. Make a compromise that allows the republicans to get out without losing any more face... Make sure the republicans actually give you something else in return. Create even more legislation that strongly dissuades congress from holding the government hostage as you wait for "compromise".... Everything covered? Good now stop posting about dicks.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan
“Despite these stakes, the president is refusing to negotiate,” Wallace said. He noted that previous votes to raise the debt ceiling have included campaign finance reform, school prayer, and a nuclear freeze. “What’s unprecedented is not Congress tying strings; what’s unprecedented is a president refusing to negotiate.” - Chris Wallace (10-06-13)
[/quote[
Yes, that partisan conservative is quite funny as well.

Someone posted that he's a registered Democrat. IDK about that, but it does seem that he's correct.

In spite of persistent and repeated claims that tying unrelated issues to the debt ceiling etc is some new and unthinkable thing, the fact is that there is a long history of it and the Dems have used it too:

Obama’s claim that non-budget items have ‘never’ been attached to the debt ceiling

Some portions of the article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...have-never-been-attached-to-the-debt-ceiling/

“You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt.”

— President Obama, remarks to the Business Roundtable, Sept. 18, 2013

The issue at hand is the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, which many congressional Republicans would like to repeal or delay as part of a vote to extend the debt ceiling–even though establishment Republicans, such as former Bush aide Karl Rove, regard the effort as a kamikaze mission with little hope of success.

Generally, raising the debt ceiling has been routine and not especially controversial. But, as we have noted before, starting in 1953 during the Dwight Eisenhower administration, fiscal conservatives in Congress at times have used the debt limit as a way to force concessions by the executive branch on spending. Eisenhower, a Republican, had particular trouble with a Democrat, Sen. Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, over the debt ceiling because Byrd was skeptical of Eisenhower’s plans to build the national highway system.

The Facts

In 1973, when Richard Nixon was president, Democrats in the Senate, including Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Walter Mondale (D-Minn.), sought to attach a campaign finance reform bill to the debt ceiling after the Watergate-era revelations about Nixon’s fundraising during the 1972 election. Their efforts were defeated by a filibuster, but it took days of debate and the lawmakers were criticized by commentators (and fellow lawmakers) for using “shotgun” tactics to try to hitch their pet cause to emergency must-pass legislation.

President Obama said that GOP lawmakers now are trying to “extort” repeal of the health care law via the debt limit, but that’s also what Democrats wanted to do with President Nixon, who opposed the campaign-finance reforms.

Indeed, Linda K. Kowalcky and Lance T. LeLoup wrote in a comprehensive study of the politics of the debt limit, for Public Administration Review, that “during this period, the genesis of a pattern developed that would eventually become full blown in the mid-1970s and 1980s: the use of the debt ceiling vote as a vehicle for other legislative matters.”

Previously, they noted, the debt limit bill had been linked to the mechanics of debt management, but now anything was fair game. Major changes in Social Security were attached to the debt bill; another controversial amendment sought to end the bombing in Cambodia. Kowalcky and LeLoup list 25 nongermane amendments that were attached to debt-limit bills between 1978 and 1987, including allowing voluntary school prayer, banning busing to achieve integration and proposing a nuclear freeze.

In 1982, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker unleashed a free-for-all by allowing 1,400 nongermane amendments to the debt ceiling legislation, which resulted in five weeks of raucous debate that mostly focused on limiting federal court jurisdiction over school payer and busing. The debt limit only passed after lawmakers decided to strip all of the amendments from the bill.

One of the most striking examples of a president being forced to accept unrelated legislation on a debt-ceiling bill took place in 1980. The House and Senate repealed a central part of President Jimmy Carter’s energy policy — an oil import fee that was expected to raise the cost of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon. Carter vetoed the bill, even though the United States was close to default, and then the House and Senate overrode his veto by overwhelming numbers (335-34 in the House; 68-10 in the Senate).

“Foes of the fee succeeded in linking the two measures to gain added leverage for killing the fee,” The Washington Post reported on Carter’s stunning defeat. “The Treasury Department immediately announced it was resuming the sale of bonds, which it suspended Thursday night when the debt ceiling expired.”

But Kowalcky and LeLoup speculate that one reason why Congress has not eliminated the debt limit, despite the political problems it poses, is because lawmakers enjoy the leverage it provides against the executive branch.

Fern

 

[Jeffg010]

With government spending down and taxes up the deficit should shrink (it has) and the debt to GDP ratio move in a favorable direction.

BS if it had shank then we would have not hit the debt ceiling. All you guys lost sight of the real problem, overspending.

 

[Lash444]

BS if it had shank then we would have not hit the debt ceiling. All you guys lost sight of the real problem, overspending.

Lol

 

[cubby1223]

BS if it had shank then we would have not hit the debt ceiling. All you guys lost sight of the real problem, overspending.

Deficit, not debt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Someone posted that he's a registered Democrat. IDK about that, but it does seem that he's correct.

In spite of persistent and repeated claims that tying unrelated issues to the debt ceiling etc is some new and unthinkable thing, the fact is that there is a long history of it and the Dems have used it too:



Fern

OTOH, Dems never forced a shutdown-

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...d_the_debt_limit_hostage.html?wpisrc=obinsite

There *is* a difference.

 

[Paul98]

What is the GOP willing to give the democrats?

 

[fskimospy]

Someone posted that he's a registered Democrat. IDK about that, but it does seem that he's correct.

In spite of persistent and repeated claims that tying unrelated issues to the debt ceiling etc is some new and unthinkable thing, the fact is that there is a long history of it and the Dems have used it too:

Fern

Did you not read the rest of the thread? He is a registered democrat so that he can participate in primaries, not because of a shared ideology. As an example, arch conservative Robert Novak was a democrat for the same reason.

Regardless, the attaching of non germane amenents to a debt bill is not the unprecedented part, the extortion is. How is this still so confusing to people after so any explanations?

 

[K1052]

BS if it had shank then we would have not hit the debt ceiling. All you guys lost sight of the real problem, overspending.

The debt would continue to grow until the deficit is closed. Since the debt ceiling is a set gross figure you'll hit it eventually as long as the deficit is there at all. The real question is GDP and the debt total growing at rates that maintain a reasonable ratio to each other.

 

[K1052]

What is the GOP willing to give the democrats?

The next couple elections apparently.

 

[Jhhnn]

What is the GOP willing to give the democrats?

Grover Norquist once described bipartisanship as date rape by the majority. Teahadists still want that advantage as the minority.

No matter what concessions Dems grant, they'll try to extort more every chance they get. It's an endless cycle of taking the the govt & economy hostage over and over again.

 

[Jhhnn]

The next couple elections apparently.

I certainly hope so. Voters need to say no to Teahad the same way we say no to Jihad. They're actually more of a threat to the welfare of this nation than terrorists ever will be.

 

[TerryMathews]

I certainly hope so. Voters need to say no to Teahad the same way we say no to Jihad. They're actually more of a threat to the welfare of this nation than terrorists ever will be.

Im so glad you guys came up with a new word, I was getting sick of hearing conservatard. :sly:

 

[michal1980]

Im so glad you guys came up with a new word, I was getting sick of hearing conservatard. :sly:

they're masters of politics of personal destruction & name calling.

Its only a problem when republicans do it.

 

[Juddog]

they're masters of politics of personal destruction & name calling.

Its only a problem when republicans do it.

Almost everything you say is a mirror of the truth. I can pretty much determine the truth by looking at what you say and reversing it.