Government Shut Down Looming!

[OCinBuffalo]

The status of this "battle" can be determined easily:

 

The Democrats have "pivoted" to the Debt Ceiling.

 

What does that tell you? What have you learned about how the Democrats conduct themselves when they are losing, over the last 7 years?

 

The irrelevant liberal can yap all he choses. When he is done: The relevant and/or elected liberals are pivoting, because they know they are losing. The liberal columnist can call names and pretend Obamacare is popular: the facts remain. They are pivoting, because they are losing.

 

If the Republicans are smart, they will pass a CR that includes a debt ceiling increase, but also, cuts some things out of Obamacare/delays the individual mandate by citing design flaws. Then, what is left for the Democrats to do but take the deal?

 

If they still refuse to negotiate? Then, they will suffer greatly for it. The average joe doesn't know/care about this, but, the average joe just got a letter that says his insurance rates are going up. He does care about that. It's not too hard for him to connect Obamacare with his wallet: why else are his rates going up?

 

So, joe suddenly tunes in to this, and finds what? Republicans trying to kill the thing that is responsible for his rates going up. That's all joe needs to know. The relevant/elected Democrat has realized this. They aren't winning. They need something else = Debt Ceiling.

 

As I said: simple.

 

 

EDIT: :lol:

 

And, as if on cue, I refresh the page at RCP...and what do I get, at the very top?

 

New York Times: Why the debt ceiling matters!

 

How coy, and predictable!

Edited October 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Gary M]

The status of this "battle" can be determined easily:

 

The Democrats have "pivoted" to the Debt Ceiling.

 

What does that tell you? What have you learned about how the Democrats conduct themselves when they are losing, over the last 7 years?

 

The irrelevant liberal can yap all he choses. When he is done: The relevant and/or elected liberals are pivoting, because they know they are losing. The liberal columnist can call names and pretend Obamacare is popular: the facts remain. They are pivoting, because they are losing.

 

If the Republicans are smart, they will pass a CR that includes a debt ceiling increase, but also, cuts some things out of Obamacare/delays the individual mandate by citing design flaws. Then, what is left for the Democrats to do but take the deal?

 

If they still refuse to negotiate? Then, they will suffer greatly for it. The average joe doesn't know/care about this, but, the average joe just got a letter that says his insurance rates are going up. He does care about that. It's not too hard for him to connect Obamacare with his wallet: why else are his rates going up?

 

So, joe suddenly tunes in to this, and finds what? Republicans trying to kill the thing that is responsible for his rates going up. That's all joe needs to know. The relevant/elected Democrat has realized this. They aren't winning. They need something else = Debt Ceiling.

 

As I said: simple.

 

 

EDIT: :lol:

 

And, as if on cue, I refresh the page at RCP...and what do I get, at the very top?

 

New York Times: Why the debt ceiling matters!

 

How coy, and predictable!

 

These idiots talk as if raising the debt ceiling is the only possible solution to this.

 

Why can't Mr. Harry Reid pass a balanced budget?

[boyst]

The status of this "battle" can be determined easily:

 

The Democrats have "pivoted" to the Debt Ceiling.

 

What does that tell you? What have you learned about how the Democrats conduct themselves when they are losing, over the last 7 years?

 

The irrelevant liberal can yap all he choses. When he is done: The relevant and/or elected liberals are pivoting, because they know they are losing. The liberal columnist can call names and pretend Obamacare is popular: the facts remain. They are pivoting, because they are losing.

 

If the Republicans are smart, they will pass a CR that includes a debt ceiling increase, but also, cuts some things out of Obamacare/delays the individual mandate by citing design flaws. Then, what is left for the Democrats to do but take the deal?

 

If they still refuse to negotiate? Then, they will suffer greatly for it. The average joe doesn't know/care about this, but, the average joe just got a letter that says his insurance rates are going up. He does care about that. It's not too hard for him to connect Obamacare with his wallet: why else are his rates going up?

 

So, joe suddenly tunes in to this, and finds what? Republicans trying to kill the thing that is responsible for his rates going up. That's all joe needs to know. The relevant/elected Democrat has realized this. They aren't winning. They need something else = Debt Ceiling.

 

As I said: simple.

 

 

EDIT: :lol:

 

And, as if on cue, I refresh the page at RCP...and what do I get, at the very top?

 

New York Times: Why the debt ceiling matters!

 

How coy, and predictable!

except joe gets mad. Grumbles a few minutes. Realizes he still has enough to make ends meet making his $26k a year. Still can buy his smokes, still can get his beer and moves on. He is used to feeling like the little guy so its nothing new

[Taro T]

These idiots talk as if raising the debt ceiling is the only possible solution to this.

 

Why can't Mr. Harry Reid pass a balanced budget?

If he ever gets to proposing A budget, I suppose he could think about then getting a balanced one out. Baby steps.

[Gary M]

Deadbeats!!!!!!

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/85380-obama-dont-pay-mortgage-youre-deadbeat/

[Azalin]

Why can't Mr. Harry Reid pass a balanced budget?

or even one that's not balanced.

[Nanker]

Like I've said many times before, he has zero regard for the American people. He's a pimp that uses his supporters like whores in a cathouse to fawn over him incessantly while treating him to an incredibly lavish lifestyle and taking their money to support his habits and build his empire.

[OCinBuffalo]

These idiots talk as if raising the debt ceiling is the only possible solution to this.

 

Why can't Mr. Harry Reid pass a balanced budget?

Sure, but, why would he talk about that? It doesn't let them avoid the fact that they are losing the shutdown "battle".

 

7 days ago all we heard was how terrible this was gonna be for Rs, politically.

 

I believe this morning was the end of that meme. This afternoon, my link proves: they've lost, on to something else.

except joe gets mad. Grumbles a few minutes. Realizes he still has enough to make ends meet making his $26k a year. Still can buy his smokes, still can get his beer and moves on. He is used to feeling like the little guy so its nothing new

Ah yes, very true.

 

However, deep down, that joe knows that the only reason he voted for Obama the second time? He didn't want to feel like a sucker.

 

Behavior, more so than polls, is the most indicative.

 

What is the behavior we are seeing from Ds? Haven't we seen this before? How many "kick-start the OUTRAGE!" columns have we seen? But, what has been the behavior? They've essentially written the same article every single day...because it didn't work the first(8th now) time.

 

It didn't work, because the Rs have successfully taken the moral high ground on this story, but more importantly, the Rs(of all people) humanized this story.

 

Look at all of the links above. Humanize Humanize Humanize. Who Fs with a fisherman trying to do his job? What's the takeaway from that story?

 

It's interesting that that Rs have put themselves in the "look out for the little guy" role. It's interesting that the Democrats have lost that role to the Rs.

 

In all cases: Pivot means losing.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Afghanistan?

So the shutdown is Bush's fault?

 

No. I made a reply to Gary M. and how the funds are there. I agree w/him... We do have a spending problem. He pointed out an example and so did I. Funds are being mismanaged.

[boyst]

OC. You're over thinking it. The little man is always going to feel like the little man. The little man who votes Republican will not change his mind for nothing despite what he might be able to get if he reached for a handout. The little man who is getting screwed by the political games that is a Republican believes he knows best for himself and the big guys know that, too. Too foolish in his ways he will never realize that he is right to fend for himself better then anyone else can and believe that a suit and tie on capitol hill will speak for his rights.

The little man who is a democrat believes he can work for a living but not make ends meet without being assisted. He will never see that what he is taking is more then his share because he will always see others as taking more and getting more. He will never have enough.

 

The little man who we call Joe can't help himself but to put himself there. The first thing we want to do is cast Joe to one side or another for gain.

 

Joe will never realize his faults. He will always just make do with what he can. Whether he has learned the system to get more or whether he works 80 hrs a week to get just scraps on the table.

 

Joe will not care who is at fault. He is not the one that will change his vote.

 

The ones that decide elections are the ones who work beside Joe. The Eric's, John's, Laurens, etc. The ones in the middle educated enough to know where they stand in life but not where they cast their shaddow

Edited October 8, 2013 by jboyst62

[Dibs]

even here I crave for logic. Imagine a media outlet giving a spin on this without using the term democrat or republican. Could a poster here do it? I challenge anyone to give a brief on the events of three weeks without those two words. Politicians names can be used as reference but not examples.

 

As an Australian who has no ties to the US, I think I can give some sort of spin on this without resorting to the terms democrat or republican. Though I am only a novice with regards to US politics and have only offhanded interest in it's machinations, the shutdown effects the rest of the world....hence my interest in the situation. Please excuse my lack of correct terminology.....and also please correct(or excuse) me where I may have misunderstood the exact processes involved in your government.

 

As an impartial observer, it seems to me that it is not the political parties, nor the health care issues that are the problem. It is your system itself that has become the problem. At some point a loophole in the system was discovered and exploited(the first government shutdown, whenever that was). It enabled the congress to attempt to bypass the law making process.

 

As I see it, laws are made/changed/rejected etc through a series of checks and balances, voted on by elected representatives of the people of the day. Having a situation where any new congress can dictate what laws(that have been made and passed through the system) should or shouldn't be changed/removed seems counter intuitive to the entire process and relocates a lot of the powers controlled by the other arms of government to the congress.

 

The fact that it is being done specifically on an important issue is quite irrelevant to the concept that it can be done at any point on any issue. Though this situation has only been a rare occurrence, it doesn't necessarily have to be. In theory a congress could hold the rest of the government to ransom and threaten to shut it down(by not passing funding) if they don't change/remove hundreds of laws that philosophically they didn't agree with.

Until your government shuts this loophole, this could become a far more common thing in the future.....particularly considering the progressive polarization of views in the modern western world.

 

 

This all reminds me of a famous international cricket match between Australia and New Zealand. (Btw, I'm not a fan of cricket but I think this example fits well)....

NZ needed a 6(a hit over the boundary) to win the match....with one ball remaining.

Australia bowled the ball underarm and rolled it down the pitch.....thus giving NZ no chance to smash it over the boundary.

There was nothing in the rules about not bowling it underarm. Australia basically exploited a loophole in the rules. The rules were quickly changed afterwards to avoid future embarrassments.

 

The general cricket fan's reaction was, as far as I can tell, similar to your current political situation.

All of NZ saw it as cheating.....and a good number of Australians saw it as cheating. There was of course a large number of Australians who thought it was all fair and good as it was not breaking any rules.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

As an Australian who has no ties to the US, I think I can give some sort of spin on this without resorting to the terms democrat or republican. Though I am only a novice with regards to US politics and have only offhanded interest in it's machinations, the shutdown effects the rest of the world....hence my interest in the situation. Please excuse my lack of correct terminology.....and also please correct(or excuse) me where I may have misunderstood the exact processes involved in your government.

 

As an impartial observer, it seems to me that it is not the political parties, nor the health care issues that are the problem. It is your system itself that has become the problem. At some point a loophole in the system was discovered and exploited(the first government shutdown, whenever that was). It enabled the congress to attempt to bypass the law making process.

 

As I see it, laws are made/changed/rejected etc through a series of checks and balances, voted on by elected representatives of the people of the day. Having a situation where any new congress can dictate what laws(that have been made and passed through the system) should or shouldn't be changed/removed seems counter intuitive to the entire process and relocates a lot of the powers controlled by the other arms of government to the congress.

 

The fact that it is being done specifically on an important issue is quite irrelevant to the concept that it can be done at any point on any issue. Though this situation has only been a rare occurrence, it doesn't necessarily have to be. In theory a congress could hold the rest of the government to ransom and threaten to shut it down(by not passing funding) if they don't change/remove hundreds of laws that philosophically they didn't agree with.

Until your government shuts this loophole, this could become a far more common thing in the future.....particularly considering the progressive polarization of views in the modern western world.

 

 

This all reminds me of a famous international cricket match between Australia and New Zealand. (Btw, I'm not a fan of cricket but I think this example fits well)....

NZ needed a 6(a hit over the boundary) to win the match....with one ball remaining.

Australia bowled the ball underarm and rolled it down the pitch.....thus giving NZ no chance to smash it over the boundary.

There was nothing in the rules about not bowling it underarm. Australia basically exploited a loophole in the rules. The rules were quickly changed afterwards to avoid future embarrassments.

 

The general cricket fan's reaction was, as far as I can tell, similar to your current political situation.

All of NZ saw it as cheating.....and a good number of Australians saw it as cheating. There was of course a large number of Australians who thought it was all fair and good as it was not breaking any rules.

 

Very good post, thank you.

 

So in other words, the Republicans are wrong, expoliting a loop hole and holding the rest of us hostage w/their baby games. Thanks... Point taken...

 

JUST KIDDING! :-)

[3rdnlng]

Does anyone know the law? This country is not going to default on its debt. If this administration follows the Constitution, like it has sworn to, they will by law have to pay the 18-20 billion monthly interest payment out of the monthly receipts of 225 billion. Yes, this country brings in that much and is constitutionally obligated to pay its interest debt first. Obama is full of schit and has intentionally lied to the American public. This what we deserve when we hire a Chicago gangster.

[B-Man]

BOB KRUMM ON OBAMA AND THE SHUTDOWN: It’s Not Business, It’s Strictly Personal.

 

http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/2013/10/its-not-business-its-strictly-personal/

 

 

 

 

 

SPREADING: More Shutdown Civil Disobedience.

 

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/08/ha-check-out-whats-plastered-over-closed-sign-in-dc-barrycades-youre-doing-it-wrong-pics/

 

 

 

.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

If Obama really wanted to be a Richard, why am I (and the 1,000's of other federal operators) going to work and locking boats through the waterways? Wouldn't he just say shut that down too and just report to work for security and flood control duties? And if he wanted to be an even bigger Richard, why even come in for that? Oh, wait people may die.

 

You'd think this would be a great way to get this ridculous point across that all the Republitard supporters think Obama is trying to make.

 

An inn in North Carolina and a restaurant in California on federal land; is that like a vessel doing business on a federal waterway?

 

Since the shutdown, I have locked through hundreds of vessels, private and commercial.

Edited October 9, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[IDBillzFan]

If Obama really wanted to be a Richard, why am I (and the 1,000's of other federal operators) going to work and locking boats through the waterways?

 

You wouldn't happen to belong to a union, would you? What about the 1,000s of other federal operators who still have a job?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

You wouldn't happen to belong to a union, would you? What about the 1,000s of other federal operators who still have a job?

 

Union is open shop. You don't have to belong or pay dues... Purely voluntary. Dues are 60% of your first hours wage, once every two weeks. We can't strike either, you gotta sign an anti-strike note. If you walk out, you get fired.

 

Anyway... It depends on the district and if they want to unionize... Some may not even have a union.

 

Me personally... I used to belong and pay dues... Not anymore. I left/got out because I feel they were misrepresenting their members and decided it was best to go it alone.

 

If your Corps District has a union... They do bargain for all. Oh well...

 

It really isn't what you think. Very few are union... Especially through the middle of the country and the south on the inlands (Inland Waterways)... Same here all the way up into Chicago... Very few belong to the union, maybe 30% or less. Even on the commercial boats, tugs, barges... Everything is NON-union... Until you MAYBE get past us and into the Great Lakes...

 

Everything is coming outta the middle of the country and deep south... VERY NON-union just like wage grades in the Fed. I am not GS. I am a Fed wage grade and my pay is set to my home district's private industrial prevailing wage... That would be: Quad Cities, Moline... Say John Deere & Peoria, say Caterpillar... Etc...

Edited October 9, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[ExiledInIllinois]

Union has nothing to do with it... They have to bargain. I never really looked into it but, probably the further north you go... More locals exist and and their affliation to a certain union... Our District's local was affliated w/NFFE @ one time. I think they are AFGE now?

 

Probably... Hot beds for stronger unions would be through St. Paul District (Upper MS) and maybe Pittsburgh (Ohio River, Allegheny, Etc...) Every local bargains with their district and has a contract... BUT, it really all has to mesh with OPM. I was steward @ our field site many moons ago before leaving the union. Out of 13 guys @ site, two are management and can't be in the union. One is maintenance/electrician, not in the union. The other 10 operators, only I think 2 belong. I would suspect numbers are like that all over the country on the waterways. Some field sites have zero union members. 10-30% has gotta be the norm.

 

Actually... I never really looked into it. I probably should. I would imagine gov't unions play very little role. Come to think of it... Rumor has it, when I heard it years ago, Seattle District (Lake Washington Canal, Chittenden/Ballard lock) was more heavy union than us in Chicago and the Midwest. Again, the heartland and deep south is very anti-union. I actually work in Chicago yet, we work out of Rock Island District. Now the lock @ Chicago Harbor is Chicago District... But they have always been operated by contract personnel since the Corps took over the lock from Metropolitan Water Reclaimation District (MWRD) back in the 1970's/1980's. Back then, the Corps in Chicago immediately farmed the operations of the lock out to private contractor. I think some Districts in the south may be contract personnel.

 

It really isn't what you think LA. Hope this clears the air and sheds light on what really goes on!

Edited October 9, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[Bronc24]

 

 

This thread has been side tracked into an analysis of Nanker's shopping habits.

 

That being said, I paid 1.45 for 1 liter of 91 octane. That's 5.50 CAD a gallon.

 

1.17 / litre here.

[3rdnlng]

If Obama really wanted to be a Richard, why am I (and the 1,000's of other federal operators) going to work and locking boats through the waterways? Wouldn't he just say shut that down too and just report to work for security and flood control duties? And if he wanted to be an even bigger Richard, why even come in for that? Oh, wait people may die.

 

You'd think this would be a great way to get this ridculous point across that all the Republitard supporters think Obama is trying to make.

 

An inn in North Carolina and a restaurant in California on federal land; is that like a vessel doing business on a federal waterway?

 

Since the shutdown, I have locked through hundreds of vessels, private and commercial.

 

Why is he shutting down unmanned memorials and the Gulf to charter fishing? Why is he allowing people to be evicted from their home on Lake Mead?