Government Shut Down Looming!

[birdog1960]

 

 

 

 

 

the fact that you find this profound or humorous or both is telling. you think people are content working minimum wage jobs? you think they don't want more? you think they're of less inherent worth? you think they shouldn't have an equal vote in our democracy? this is a shameful thing. but history has proven it an effective political tack. 47% anyone?

[Doc]

millions of working poor are going to love being able to get subsidized insurance. i know many already waiting for it. those newly enrolled in medicaid are going to be happy. early retirees or those who find themselves unemployed past middle age who will now be able to find an affordable policy will be happy (know many already waiting for this as well and some who are waiting for it to retire). those with preexisting conditions will be very happy. that's millions of folks.

Yep, millions think they like it because they see the artificially low first-year teaser premiums and think "I'll be paying less!" But as I said, the death knell was healthy people paying more than before, and that means skyrocketing premiums in the future. Now I know that thinking about the future is a foreign concept for libs, but it doesn't mean it won't be a cold slap in the face when it arrives.

 

but again, what's the worry if opponents are so sure it will fail? should be easy to remove and will be a big pr and poltical win for the right. this should be viewed as opportunity in that case, right?

Why worry if it costs trillions of dollars, will lead to an increase in not only premiums for everyone, but an increase in health care spending, and drive doctors out of the field and lower quality? Gee, I wonder.

[B-Man]

the fact that you find this profound or humorous or both is telling. you think people are content working minimum wage jobs? you think they don't want more? you think they're of less inherent worth? you think they shouldn't have an equal vote in our democracy? this is a shameful thing. but history has proven it an effective political tack. 47% anyone?

 

The fact that you are applying your own conclusions to my posting a political cartoon is ALL TOO TELLING to you.

 

You obviously are an educated person, but you know so little about conservatives other than leftist cliches.

 

Try and stick to explaining your own viewpoints better, because you certainly get lost when trying to "interpret" mine.

 

 

Here's another for you........................

 

 

 

 

 

[John Adams]

 

 

you think people are content working minimum wage jobs? Content, no. Working their ass off to move ahead? Only the ones who are at minimum wage for a very short time.

 

you think they don't want more? Want yes. Understand the hard work that divides wanting more and getting more? Not most.

 

you think they're of less inherent worth? Some.

 

you think they shouldn't have an equal vote in our democracy? No. Every idiot can vote. Thankfully most don't or we'd have Paris Hilton running the country. And in the 80s, we'd have had 2 terms of the Noid.

Edited September 28, 2013 by John Adams

[Doc]

you think people are content working minimum wage jobs? Content, no. Working their ass off to move ahead? Only the ones who are at minimum wage for a very short time.

 

you think they don't want more? Want yes. Understand the hard work that divides wanting more and getting more? Not most.

 

you think they're of less inherent worth? Some.

 

you think they shouldn't have an equal vote in our democracy? No. Every idiot can vote. Thankfully most don't or we'd have Paris Hilton running the country.

You say to-may-to...

[John Adams]

 

You say to-may-to...

 

Of course I teed that up. But Obama was thought of as a centrist to the right of Hillary 5 years ago. He coasted over Romney because we never vote out incumbents in this country. Just easier to let it ride.

[/dev/null]

Edited September 28, 2013 by /dev/null

[birdog1960]

The fact that you are applying your own conclusions to my posting a political cartoon is ALL TOO TELLING to you.

 

You obviously are an educated person, but you know so little about conservatives other than leftist cliches.

 

Try and stick to explaining your own viewpoints better, because you certainly get lost when trying to "interpret" mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wanna enlighten me as to how you interpreted that cartoon? it's fair to assume you agreed with that interpretation since you posted it.

[B-Man]

How to Constitutionally Fund the Government :It’s the House’s prerogative to supply funds, or not, for Obamacare.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

 

FTA:

A little over a week ago, with the October 1 implementation of Obamacare looming, the House voted not to fund the massive and massively unprepared program. This House bill has been scorned by the GOP establishment and its sympathetic scribes. Echoing Beltway oracle Charles Krauthammer, they tut-tut that Republicans only control “one half of one third of the government”; therefore, the refrain goes, they cannot reasonably expect to impose their policy preferences on an electorate that has placed the White House and Senate under Democratic control.

 

Yet the Constitution that Republicans claim to venerate does not assign power in proportion to the quantum of governmental departments or congressional seats won in elections. All or part of each enumerated power is assigned to specified components of government by subject matter. And significantly, at least if we are truly honoring the Constitution as originally designed, the Framers did not assign authority arbitrarily. Rather, supremacy over a given power was assigned to the component of government best suited to control its exercise in a free republic.

 

Consent to the president’s appointment of high public officials is reserved to the Senate alone — it makes no difference whether the House or the presidency is controlled by the opposing party. Legal decisions are the province of the judiciary, and can be dictated by five Democratic justices — even if the rest of the Supreme Court and the rest of the government are solidly Republican.

 

And spending is the prerogative of the House. Not the Congress, the House.

 

The Constitution expressly provides (in Article I, Section 7): “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This Origination Clause applies to all spending legislation. As the clause elaborates, when the subject at issue involves spending public money, the Senate “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills”; but it may not instigate spending. The Senate can tinker within the spending limits set by the House, but it must live within those limits. The continuing resolution to fund the government, which is the legislation at issue in the current controversy, is no exception.

 

The Senate is not permitted to originate spending, as Majority Leader Harry Reid did on Friday, with the indulgence of Senate Republicans — who voted against his appropriation of Obamacare funds but did not challenge the validity of it.

 

{snip}

 

As Madison elaborated, the purpose of the Origination Clause is to put the “power of the purse” firmly in the hands of “the immediate representatives of the people.” Government has no resources of its own; it has only what it confiscates from the citizenry. In a free republic, liberty hinges on the ability of citizens to constrain the demands government can make. The Framers prudently concluded that the best means of constraint was to give the definitive word on taxing and spending to the House: The only legislators directly elected by the people at the time the Constitution was adopted (senators were chosen by their state legislatures until 1913); and, to this day, the only representatives who must face the voters every two years.

 

As noted above, the legislation at issue in the present controversy is not Obamacare specifically. It is a continuing resolution for funding the entire government. Under the Constitution, any funding in the continuing resolution must not only be approved by the House, it must originate in the House.

 

In a properly functioning constitutional process, however, Reid’s maneuver would have failed. Not only Republicans but senators of both parties, in fidelity to the Constitution, would concede that, while the Senate may ask the House to fund Obamacare as part of the continuing resolution, it is the House’s call.

 

.

[B-Man]

This is why, and how, several posters here form their opinions..................................................

 

The Associated Press Goes to Bat For the Democratic Party

 

Why do Republicans never seem to come out ahead politically when they go toe-to-toe with the Democrats? Part of the reason, at least, is that the press, to a greater extent than at any time in our history, is monolithically Democrat. The most important news organ is the Associated Press, whose articles appear in hundreds, or possibly thousands, of newspapers around the country. The AP pretends to be a neutral, just-the-facts information source, but it is nothing of the kind. While there are some good reporters at the AP, the overwhelming majority function, as to issues that are politically controversial, as advocates for the Democratic Party.

 

So tomorrow, the AP will cover the current spending standoff in an article that will appear across the country, likely in whatever newspaper you read. The AP’s piece, by Andrew Taylor, begins:

With the government teetering on the brink of partial shutdown, congressional Republicans vowed Sunday to keep using an otherwise routine federal funding bill to try to attack the president’s health care law.

 

There you have it! Our government is “teetering,” but those dastardly Republicans have “vowed” to use an “otherwise routine” spending bill to “try to attack” Obamacare. It’s all their fault! Nowhere do the Democrats “vow,” nowhere do they violate “routine,” nowhere do they “attack” anything. So whatever is going on here, it evidently is the doing of Republicans.

Since the last government shutdown 17 years ago, temporary funding bills known as continuing resolutions have been noncontroversial, with neither party willing to chance a shutdown to achieve legislative goals it couldn’t otherwise win. But with health insurance exchanges set to open on Tuesday, tea-party Republicans are willing to take the risk in their drive to kill the health care law.

 

This is revisionist history; the truth is that “shutdowns” have been common over the years, usually precipitated by Congressional Democrats, and there have been several recent occasions when shutdowns have appeared imminent. But now, the AP tells us, it is “tea-party Republicans” who are “willing to take the risk.” What about Harry Reid and the Democrats? Are they “willing to take the risk?” Apparently they have nothing to do with it.

 

And what is the significance of the AP’s reference to “tea party Republicans?” The House passed its continuing resolution by 231-192, with 229 out of 231 Republicans voting in favor. (Two Democrats also voted for the House CR.) So are all Republicans “tea party Republicans?” Apparently so, yet the AP is obviously trying to make some kind of point with that description.

 

 

Many more examples of A.P. slant in today's "news article" at the link.......................

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/the-associated-press-goes-to-bat-for-the-democratic-party.php

[DC Tom]

For the first time in years, I'm watching local TV news.

 

Did you all know that the Republicans are holding the Statue of Liberty hostage?

 

 

TV's going off now...

[John Adams]

It remains childish to tie Obamacare to this. It remains childish of the Dems to not address the spending. The fallout from a shutdown will be bad but we will again re-elect the idiots making it possible.

[Tiberius]

Of course I teed that up. But Obama was thought of as a centrist to the right of Hillary 5 years ago. He coasted over Romney because we never vote out incumbents in this country. Just easier to let it ride.

 

I thought he was a re-make of Jimmy Carter?

[DC Tom]

It remains childish to tie Obamacare to this. It remains childish of the Dems to not address the spending. The fallout from a shutdown will be bad but we will again re-elect the idiots making it possible.

 

"Childish" has been the name of the game ever since 2008, when Pelosi childishly took sole credit for the bipartisan bailout and the House Republicans responded by petulantly throwing the entire credit market and world economy under a bus. Five years now...this Congress has spent more time in kindergarten than gatorman at this point.

[Tiberius]

"Childish" has been the name of the game ever since 2008, when Pelosi childishly took sole credit for the bipartisan bailout and the House Republicans responded by petulantly throwing the entire credit market and world economy under a bus. Five years now...this Congress has spent more time in kindergarten than gatorman at this point.

 

Gatorman reference!

[B-Man]

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Obama Wants A Government Shutdown.

“In the past, he’s always done better when he can accuse somebody of some terrible thing and go campaign against them. I think he wants to say that Obamacare is working … He’ll want this war to continue.”

 

ARI FLEISCHER: If The Government Shuts Down, It’s Because The Democrats Insist On Taxing People’s Pacemakers And Hearing Aids.

 

 

 

 

 

Extremely Extreme Extremists Liberal “shutdown” rhetoric ignores the irresponsibility of Democrats.

by Robert Stacy McCain

 

Democrats and their media allies have spent the past week labeling Republicans “anarchists,” “fanatics,” “radicals,” and “terrorists” who are wholly to blame for the situation that we are told will soon lead to a government shutdown. And if all you know about this situation is what you get from the media, you might actually believe that this is a crisis created by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and his fellow conservatives who sought to use the vote on a short-term spending bill as a means of preventing implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare.

 

Here’s a simple question: Why are we currently funding the federal government through a series of short-term measures known as “continuing resolutions”?

 

The answer is that the budgeting process has completely broken down in recent years, and the two men most responsible for that breakdown are President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For three consecutive years — 2010, 2011, and 2012 — the Democrat-controlled Senate did not pass a budget bill because Reid knew that it would be a political liability to do so. Passing a budget that detailed the Democrats’ plans for spending and revenue as official policy would have exposed the “something for nothing” swindle that Reid and his colleagues are perpetrating on the American people. Republican challengers campaigning against Democrat senators could have cited their votes for the budget bill, saying that the incumbent voted for this, that, or the other unpopular component of the measure.

 

Reid and the Democrats knew this. They knew very well that the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, that there was not enough tax revenue to pay the mushrooming cost of entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, et cetera), and certainly there wasn’t enough revenue to pay for all the boondoggles and giveaways the Democrats voted for in the name of “stimulus.”

[boyst]

Well, just passing along what I have noticed. I stopped by the local Ag building. The Fed Soil and Water employee is taking her hiatus effective today at 3pm. FSA begins tomorrow. Fed air quality folks tomorrow. They were told to leave all Gov property at the office, including parking government vehicles.

 

Can someone help me put a quick wrap on what is happening for my GF?

[B-Man]

The Shutdown Myths The debate over the government shutdown should acknowledge its limited effects.

By Andrew Stiles

 

Several hours remain until government funding expires, and if Congress cannot agree on a resolution to continue that funding before midnight, the government will shut down. If that happens, Democrats will be ready with countless horror stories about the consequences of extremist Republican obstructionism, so it’s worth examining the details of what will and will not occur during a government shutdown.

 

One common argument is likely to be that Republicans, in forcing a government shutdown, are hurting the most highly respected government employees: our troops. But according to the Department of Defense, funding for active-duty military personnel, as well as military operations in Afghanistan, will be unaffected by a government shutdown. About 400,000 civilian defense employees, on the other hand, could face furloughs, according to the Pentagon’s contingency plan.

 

Troop paychecks could potentially be delayed if a shutdown lasts longer than a week, but that risk could be averted if the Senate passes a bill to ensure that military personnel are paid on time in the event of a shutdown. The House has already passed the measure, by a vote of 422–0.

 

Congressional and White House staff would undergo a similar process. But members of Congress and President Obama would continue to receive their six-figure salaries, although the president’s paycheck could potentially be delayed if the shutdown continues for some time. Congress does have the authority to retroactively reimburse furloughed workers for missed pay, and did so after the shutdowns of the mid 1990s.

 

Many government services would also be unaffected if the government “shuts down.” The U.S. Postal Service would continue to deliver mail, food-safety inspection would continue largely unabated, as would disaster-relief efforts and law-enforcement activities. Seniors would continue to receive Social Security benefits, which are classified as mandatory spending, and the federal workers involved in the distribution of such benefits would continue to work to ensure they are processed on time.

 

The government will continue to pay unemployment benefits during a shutdown, as it did in 1995, according to the Department of Labor’s contingency plan. Food-stamp benefits would also be unaffected because the program’s funding, as allocated in the stimulus package of 2009, does not expire until next year. The federal school-lunch program should have enough flexibility to avoid funding shortages.

 

And yes, even the implementation of Obamacare would proceed apace, provided the president does not unilaterally decide to delay it further. State- and federally run health-care exchanges — at least those whose implementation is going ahead on time — will still open on Tuesday, and other core aspects of the law will continue to receive funding, via mandatory appropriations. Proponents of passing a continuing resolution that keeps government open but explicitly defunds all of Obamacare often cite this as a motivating factor for their strategy.

 

{snip}

 

Democrats and a sympathetic media can blame Republicans for the consequences of “shutting down the government” all they want; Republicans will continue to point fingers at President Obama and Senate majority leader Harry Reid. The American people will ultimately decide for themselves,

 

but an honest debate won’t be possible if partisan agitators insist on suggesting that a shutdown means putting at risk Social Security benefits, food-safety inspection, and funding for the troops.

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2013 by B-Man

[John Adams]

 

 

Gatorman reference!

 

You were Dave in Norfolk right? That's your best post right there over two personas. Keep up the good work man.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What's the big deal?

 

I am DoD and worked through the last gov't shutdown in 1996. Same with the furlough this past summer... I will be working right through no matter what happens, shutdown or not. Heck, I gotta work this weekend. Carp can't get us to cease operations, heck silly shutdowns and furloughs can't either...

 

The beat goes on 24/7/365 on the inland waterways! 2 man crews are the bare minimum and we are already there.