Gubment Shutdown

[Tide1986]

I'm working for you today for free, and will continue to do so until the government comes back on line.

So you'll decline your backpay? You may have just solved the government's budgetary woes!

 

[bama_wayne1]

Might want to revisit your facts a bit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/u...3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html

Isn't it a fact that you have to pass a budget in both houses? This one did not make it through the house and our congress can't come together and broker a bill that will pass both. So The Obama administration has NOT passed a budget for 2014.

 

[chanson78]

Isn't it a fact that you have to pass a budget in both houses? This one did not make it through the house and our congress can't come together and broker a bill that will pass both. So The Obama administration has NOT passed a budget for 2014.

I was referring to the statement:

All this is over the fact that we can't get the Senate to forward a budget as required by law.

When they clearly did. Immaterial is the fact that the Senate and Congress are so dysfunctional that they couldn't compromise. The Senate, did in fact, pass a budget. First one in four years at that! Lets everyone congratulate them on doing their jobs. As an aside, I really really think that every member of the Congress and Senate are pretty useless and could be replaced by cans of potted meat and probably do a better job.

Edit: We may be being a bit pedantic. The Senate put together a budget, which was immediately shot down by Congress. Sooo technically if you don't want to say that they passed a budget, neither did the Congress, as we have been operating under a cobbled together series of CR's and amendments.

 

[bama_wayne1]

I was referring to the statement:



When they clearly did. Immaterial is the fact that the Senate and Congress are so dysfunctional that they couldn't compromise. The Senate, did in fact, pass a budget. First one in four years at that! Lets everyone congratulate them on doing their jobs. As an aside, I really really think that every member of the Congress and Senate are pretty useless and could be replaced by cans of potted meat and probably do a better job.

I concur.

 

[bama_wayne1]

I think this is a bit disingenuous. The time for asking/negotiating for things was when the budget was passed originally. This is a measure to determine if we are going to pay what we already passed into law as things we would pay.

The only other people who get to renegotiate this way are professional athletes. "Hey GM I had an awesome year. Give me money or I won't do what I already contractually agreed to do next year." If a businessman had worked out a contractual agreement with some trucking company, and that trucking company threatened to run their trucks through the front of that guys business unless he gave them a pony, that would be extortion and any number of other offenses I can't think of right now. Every single person who is saying Obama/Democrats won't negotiate would scream bloody murder for that trucking company to be put in jail because of the poor business person. How is this different? You don't get to negotiate for things mid contract especially when there is majority shareholder(citizen) support for the measures. They (the american people) rejected Romney, they didn't give the republican a majority in the senate. Obamacare was passed into law, portions were upheld by the supreme court, and people are still trying to get rid of it no matter the damage they may or not may do to the economy.

How is this the fault of Obama and Democrats not negotiating again?

Which Budget was passed and agree to fund?

 

[Tide1986]

I think this is a bit disingenuous. The time for asking/negotiating for things was when the budget was passed originally. This is a measure to determine if we are going to pay what we already passed into law as things we would pay.

The only other people who get to renegotiate this way are professional athletes. "Hey GM I had an awesome year. Give me money or I won't do what I already contractually agreed to do next year." If a businessman had worked out a contractual agreement with some trucking company, and that trucking company threatened to run their trucks through the front of that guys business unless he gave them a pony, that would be extortion and any number of other offenses I can't think of right now. Every single person who is saying Obama/Democrats won't negotiate would scream bloody murder for that trucking company to be put in jail because of the poor business person. How is this different? You don't get to negotiate for things mid contract especially when there is majority shareholder(citizen) support for the measures. They (the american people) rejected Romney, they didn't give the republican a majority in the senate. Obamacare was passed into law, portions were upheld by the supreme court, and people are still trying to get rid of it no matter the damage they may or not may do to the economy.

How is this the fault of Obama and Democrats not negotiating again?

Wanting to do something is one thing. Having the money to do it is the more meaningful criterion.

 

[Al A Bama]

Odd....this was over an hour ago....I feel no different.

Turn Out The Lights as You Leave

Well, it's been over 13 hours and it has not affected me. So, I don't feel any different. Maybe that says we don't need all those people in the Gubment!?.

Now, it does irritate me to hear Prince Harry Reid name-call Republicans and Tea Party members. I am not a Republican, a Socialists Democrat, a Tea Party member or a Liberatarian.

However, I know people he called Anarchists are Patriotic Americans and I resent his calling them Anarchists, Bullies and other such names.

In fact I think he is the BULLY! I just think he is an EVIL person. There are others that are in that same category.

 

[G-VilleTider]

It seems like that the Republicans have succeeded in cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[chanson78]

Which Budget was passed and agree to fund?

Wanting to do something is one thing. Having the money to do it is the more meaningful criterion.

I will reply to both you and bama_wayne.

The ACA act was made into law, which had funding and taxation requirements that would pay for it. The 2013 budget is a series of piecemeal funding legislation and eventual continuing resolution of the 2012 budget. Both the Senate and House made budgets, but neither were even close to resembling something realistic.

The time for negotiation was then, not now when we are in essence having put a good bit of our expenditures on credit card, and now that the bill is due, we are just saying "Nope. I don't wanna pay unless you give me a pony, a unicorn, and whatever else I want."

Re: Money to pay for it.

The Democrats are too weak willed to come after the Republican holy grail. Defense spending gets ridiculous amounts of money and has continued to get funded at levels higher than the DoD asked for (except for after the sequestration, which was an across the board cut). The point is, that there is a significant amount of money that could be saved just by not blowing other people up. But Obama and the Democrats are too cowed by the fact that the Democrats, Republicans, TSA, NSA, CIA, and Fox News have convinced all Americans that not only is terrorism real, but you are just a few tapped phone calls and underwear bombs from never seeing your precious children ever again.

All that being said, if Obamacare hadn't been about to turn on (and technically actually turned on today) I seriously doubt that the Republicans would be throwing a hissy fit, even though the budget technically would have still been increasing the national debt. With or without Obamacare the budget for 2013 operated under a deficit. So to say that this is purely over fiscal responsibility because we are operating under a deficit is misleading at best. Where were all these stalwart fiscal hawks when we put two wars on credit card?

 

[bama_wayne1]

Well, it's been over 13 hours and it has not affected me. So, I don't feel any different. Maybe that says we don't need all those people in the Gubment!?.

Now, it does irritate me to hear Prince Harry Reid name-call Republicans and Tea Party members. I am not a Republican, a Socialists Democrat, a Tea Party member or a Liberatarian.

However, I know people he called Anarchists are Patriotic Americans and I resent his calling them Anarchists, Bullies and other such names.

In fact I think he is the BULLY! I just think he is an EVIL person. There are others that are in that same category.

Actually I'm not quite as paranoid about what they may be doing to me. I'm ready for TOTAL SHUTDOWN!!

 

[Al A Bama]

Just heard on NPR that 90% of the EPA has been sent home. Yea!

That's ALMOST the best thing that could happen. The best thing would be to send 100% home permanently!

 

[Al A Bama]

It seems like that the Republicans have succeeded in cutting off their nose to spite their face.

There comes a time in people's lives when they need to take a stand opposing the movement of our government to a socialistic one. I hope that time has come.

 

[bamachile]

Might want to revisit your facts a bit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/u...3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html

I stand corrected. My bile will now be directed only at their abysmal failure for four consecutive years rather than five.

In all seriousness, I appreciate the correction; I need them from time to time. I am still unimpressed, but I don't think anyone else here - righty or lefty - is on the Congressional cheerleading squad, so I'll just let it go there.

 

[Al A Bama]

If there is going to be ObamaCare (Affordable Care Act that's less affordable), there needs to be EQUITY and QUALITY in the system. There should be no sweetheart deals for anyone: big business, labor unions, Senators, U. S. Reps, Congressional and Senate staffers, et al. In this law there is no Equity and the Quality of health care will be worse than ever.

So the Senate and the House need to agree to those terms and come to a compromise with those things in mind.

The name calling needs to STOP, Prince Harry! And yes I have e-mailed him that recommendation.

 

[bama_wayne1]

I will reply to both you and bama_wayne.

The ACA act was made into law, which had funding and taxation requirements that would pay for it. The 2013 budget is a series of piecemeal funding legislation and eventual continuing resolution of the 2012 budget. Both the Senate and House made budgets, but neither were even close to resembling something realistic.

The time for negotiation was then, not now when we are in essence having put a good bit of our expenditures on credit card, and now that the bill is due, we are just saying "Nope. I don't wanna pay unless you give me a pony, a unicorn, and whatever else I want."

Re: Money to pay for it.

The Democrats are too weak willed to come after the Republican holy grail. Defense spending gets ridiculous amounts of money and has continued to get funded at levels higher than the DoD asked for (except for after the sequestration, which was an across the board cut). The point is, that there is a significant amount of money that could be saved just by not blowing other people up. But Obama and the Democrats are too cowed by the fact that the Democrats, Republicans, TSA, NSA, CIA, and Fox News have convinced all Americans that not only is terrorism real, but you are just a few tapped phone calls and underwear bombs from never seeing your precious children ever again.

All that being said, if Obamacare hadn't been about to turn on (and technically actually turned on today) I seriously doubt that the Republicans would be throwing a hissy fit, even though the budget technically would have still been increasing the national debt. With or without Obamacare the budget for 2013 operated under a deficit. So to say that this is purely over fiscal responsibility because we are operating under a deficit is misleading at best. Where were all these stalwart fiscal hawks when we put two wars on credit card?

So there is no budget that has been approved since this health care law was passed. That being true I think it is time to realize that our system of governing requires all three branches to work together to accomplish anything. The health care law was passed when the Democrats had control of all three. That is now over and the other party, whichever one it would happen to be, under any time in our history used their power to correct things that happened when they were outnumbered. I guess we will have to live with that. Think about when Clinton was POTUS, when he faced these same types of circumstances, he acted as a negotiator and continued to accomplish things. Our current POTUS only continues to look at it as "I WON" so you have to do what I say. Well maybe not! His entire country is suffering because he fuels the disagreements instead of trying to broker compromise. Every time he comes forth with what he calls a compromise it is increased taxes.

 

[bama_wayne1]

Here's hoping. In the past, the answer has been yes, but Congress in its infinite wisdom can pretty much do anything it wants.

Good luck, I hope you do.

 

[Bamafaninco1]

I see someone is getting close to 10,000 posts -- I'm just sayin

Dude?

 

[Bamafaninco1]

Then what? All they are doing is stalling while hoping they get more seats next election. That's pretty transparent. They really don't care about fixing any of the "issues" they are pointing out.

And the reason the President delayed the business mandate till Jan 2015 is?

 

[Bamafaninco1]

That's a negative, Rampart, although that is how it is being played.

All this is over the fact that we can't get the Senate to forward a budget as required by law.

Budgets must come from the House, by law, then approval from the Senate. No budget can start in the Senate.

 

[2003TIDE]

And the reason the President delayed the business mandate till Jan 2015 is?

To allow time to fix issues for businesses. What does that have to do with Republicans wanting to stall?