|
Title: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: ekg on April 06, 2011, 10:49:58 am ;) talk about sensational.. ;)
anyway, I found this pretty interesting.. Quote Boehner wants to pass spending cuts with GOP alone Sometimes in politics and legislation, whether you win is less important than how you win. That's the dilemma facing House Speaker John Boehner as he tries to round up the votes to pass a fast-approaching spending compromise and avert a partial government shutdown by week's end. Boehner, R-Ohio, wants the overwhelming majority of those votes to come from his fellow Republicans, even if dozens of easily attainable Democratic votes could help carry the budget bill to victory. The goal complicates Boehner's task, and possibly could push the bill farther to the right. It motivates him to battle for the votes of conservative Republicans who are demanding deeper spending cuts, and greater changes to social issues such as abortion access, than the Democratic-controlled Senate and President Barack Obama say they can accept. If Boehner can argue convincingly that it's the only route to House passage, Democrats conceivably could yield on some points they might otherwise win. At the same time, however, Boehner is trying to persuade Republicans that some compromise is inevitable. "We control one-half of one-third of the government," he said last week. "We can't impose our will on the Senate." Eventually, both parties must decide where to draw the line in negotiations and whether to risk a government shutdown that could trigger unpredictable political fallout. Some congressional veterans say Boehner is taking the only realistic approach for a speaker who wants to stay in power. If he cuts a deal that relies heavily on Democrats' votes, he could alienate scores of House Republicans, who might in turn start seeking a new leader. "You always have to please at least half your caucus, plus one," said John Feehery, a top aide to the previous Republican speaker, Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Hastert had a "majority of the majority" rule. It meant he would bring no major bill to the House floor unless most Republicans supported it. It didn't matter if every House Democrat backed the bill, which would allow it to pass with a minority of Republicans. In essence, Democrats' votes were irrelevant to Hastert. Boehner is taking a similar approach, at least publicly. "Not very interested," Boehner told reporters last week when asked about forming a coalition with Democrats to pass the legislation to keep the government operating. Lawmakers and the White House are negotiating, but all sides agree the measure should cut more than $32 billion from current-year spending. Many Republicans want deeper cuts. Boehner has told colleagues he wants at least 218 House Republicans to vote for the spending package. That's the magic number for passing bills in the 435-member House. blah-blah-blah (http://mobile.salon.com/news/feature/2011/04/03/us_boehner_herding_votes) so, he knows that they only control 1/3 of 1/2 of the gov't... where as the tea-baggers don't really get that point -He knows that the country is sick of partsian-stupid and they want bi-partsian compromise, but he can't care because of the Tea-baggers -He's not interested in getting any Dem votes, or compromise because of the tea-baggers -He knows he and his party will be blamed for a shutdown, (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/05/boehner-reportedly-tells-gop-caucus-dems-will-win-if-the-government-shuts-down/) but the tea-baggers what the shutdown -He got a standing ovation from his caucus (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/04/05/are-we-heading-for-a-government-shutdown/) when he warned them of a shutdown, again because the tea-baggers want the shutdown -He asked for 32 BN months ago, and got 33Bn and even admitted yesterday the President has given more than Boehner expected, but getting what you asked for is not what the tea-baggers want, they want to shut it down. at what point does Boehner just meltdown from the stress of it all? I almost feel bad for the guy, he wants that 'gavel' so badly that he has to stick with people who refuse to move.. These people don't understand that if they sign this agreement today, they've won! What's on the table is the GOP's original offer plus 1bn more.. At this point they look like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. Every time they get what they ask for, they decide.. nah, we want something else.. add in that what they really want is a gov't shutdown and it's pretty clear just how fucked up this radicalization of the GOP has gotten.. seriously, wants only GOP votes? Not any Dem votes.. and he's still trying to pretend like the Dems are the one who won't compromise? eh, what am I saying.. our press won't call him on any of it, so it really doesn't matter..and this Pres and Reid will cave in eventually because they just can't fight.. anyway, for any old-school republican looking around wondering wtf happened to your party? Hey, this is what you get when you sit by and let the tiger loose because they are doing your bidding. eventually that tiger gets more and more power and then turns on you. You could have nipped it in the bud at any time along the way, but stayed silent and now you've got to lay in the bed you've created.. Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: uselesslegs on April 06, 2011, 11:30:07 am Sometimes you get what you "acted" like you wanted...in droooveesss.
The tea party will take nothing less than a Government shut down at this point, since they didn't get some magical insane number of 500b or 1 trillion dollars that doesn't touch taxes of the wealthiest, military spending, subsidies, corp tax loop holes and breaks, ect., ect. They keep using this analogy of not living beyond your budget, as it pertains to a household. I wonder how quick they'd be to continue to use that analogy if all their elderly and disabled relatives lived with them? "I'm sorry Aunt Judy, Cousin Scott, and my brother Bob, but I'm going to drastically reduce your meds and other access to medical care...so I can get that new car and pretend to attack household finances. Uncle Don and Grandma Ruby, I'm gonna take more of your social security and disability checks so the wife and I don't have to stop going out to movies and to eat 3 times a week. We ALL gotta sacrifice more now *sniff*. The tea party want to take this "personal responsibility" and apply it to children, the elderly, and the disabled. Talk about a death panel. They want this across the board approach, that is wholly not "across the board", and refuse to address the paradox it creates by continuing to enrich others at the expense of the most vulnerable, but insist it's the only thing we can do. Really? "Not my fault they were born whacky, they're drag'in us down man. If they can't figure out a way to capitalize on marketing their drool, then their just take'in up space." Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 06, 2011, 07:23:06 pm Boehner's an idiot incapable of managing the House and budget negotiations on behalf of his party. He's allowed a vocal, but fringe, element of the party dictate every move he makes.
Pretty sad since the majority of them have been in office, what? three months? Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 07, 2011, 10:07:15 am Who supports compromise vs. a shutdown? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42460168/ns/politics-white_house/)
Quote As negotiators in Congress squabble over the size and scope of spending cuts for the remainder of the fiscal year, Democrats and Republicans outside the Beltway differ dramatically in how they want their leaders to handle the budget stalemate, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. In a contrast that illustrates why the standoff has pushed the federal government to the verge of a shutdown, the poll finds an overwhelming majority of Democrats wanting the leaders of their party in Congress to compromise, and a majority of Republicans wanting theirs to stand firm. That's a 68% overwhelming majority of Democrats willing to compromise vs. an overwhelming 56% of Republicans wanting their party to not compromise, regardless of the outcome (shutdown). Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 07, 2011, 10:15:02 am Before someone screams out "But that's a liberal MSNBC poll!": It was conducted with the WSJ, not exactly a bastion of liberal ideas. And in conjunction with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.
Two more polls: http://www.gallup.com/poll/146969/Americans-Favor-Budget-Compromise-Shutdown.aspx [img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4cb4225e71.gif] (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/) http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/poll-more-democrats-than-republicans-favor-compromise-on-budget/ Quote Just days away from a potential government shutdown, a majority of Democrats and independents say lawmakers with whom they share views should be more willing to compromise even if that results in a budget they disagree with. But fewer Republicans, especially those that agree with the Tea Party movement, say the same, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center. Over all, 55 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of independents and 69 percent of Democrats, want lawmakers whose views they agree with to compromise. But 50 percent of Republicans, including 56 percent of conservative Republicans, want lawmakers who share their views to stand by their principles, even if that means the government will shut down. Among Republicans and Republicans-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 68 percent want lawmakers who share their views to stand on principle. I'd like someone to explain how the Republicans are reflecting "the will of the people". Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 07, 2011, 10:17:23 am Another question:
If a deal is reached and signed into law by Friday, who will be bitching it didn't follow Boehner's 72 hour rule? Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 07, 2011, 11:14:46 am Heh...no wonder lilMike's so scared of Think Progress!
http://youtu.be/nO80fwR5Hb4?hd=1 Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: ekg on April 07, 2011, 11:56:22 am I watched Hannity last night for as long as I could take it, which wasn't very long (ha) and it's amazing to watch the 'other side' in this.. Hannity wants a shutdown, he's telling the congressmen on his show to stick to their guns and not back down and 'we here at Fox, will have your back".. at the same time, they are all blaming the Dems for wanting to shut everything down. They're saying the Dems just won't 'deal' and 'compromise'.. wtf? You can't advocate sticking to your guns and not backing down and then blame the other side because they won't compromise.. especially when that side gave you 105% of what you asked for right off the bat..
it's like neither side understand negotiation.. Obama/Dems think it means giving the other-side everything they ask and then giving them more.. and Boehner/tea-baggers think it's demanding more when you get everything you wanted to begin with.. it's like retard-compromise or something.. Over the last few days 2 things have become glaringly clear... 1) there is a section of the GOP that wants a shutdown more than they want a reduced budget. They pretend that they want to cut spending, but what they really want is to lead the other side on by moving the goal posts again and again and again until they finally reach the end point and they get the shutdown... the 2nd) obvious fact also backs up the 1st, and that's that this was never about the 'budget' to begin with. What does abortion rights,EPA and birth control have to do with this and, if you ask for 33bn and you get it, why does it matter if that 33bn doesn't all come from the programs you want it to come from? The net result is the same a -33Bn in spending. None of this is about spending or the budget.. it's about extreme christian ideology and paying back this or that business for their donations.. I had more hopes for the tea-baggers, but they are more 'bought and paid for' than any other group in Washington today.. Matthews made a great point last night, he said 'who would ever believe that the Dems, the party of Big Government, would ever want to shut that government down' and he's right.. let see, we have a party that wants the biggest gov't they can get (or so the other side says) and the other party who hates gov't and wants the smallest one they can get(or so they claim).. hmmmm I wonder who would be at fault if the government actually shutdown.. gee that's a tough one.. ::) Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: 44nutman on April 07, 2011, 12:16:01 pm Another question: The Weiner will. He may find another childrens book to make fun of the Gop. I love The Weiner. If a deal is reached and signed into law by Friday, who will be bitching it didn't follow Boehner's 72 hour rule? Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: ekg on April 07, 2011, 12:25:45 pm The Weiner will. He may find another childrens book to make fun of the Gop. I love The Weiner. Have you seen this yet? http://youtu.be/fj_yProUnEI I love the "what am I, Anthony Waynor? Just embrace it brother" part ;D Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: uselesslegs on April 07, 2011, 01:04:08 pm I like ole Anthony because he refuses to let glaring inconsistencies go quietly into gentle discourse. He's also not a fan of, "I have my facts and you have yours, so we'll just have to agree to disagree." Ohhhhhh hellllllll no.
Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 07, 2011, 04:43:46 pm More questions...
Why is there a policy rider to the budget defunding Planned Parenthood to prevent abortions? Since when does Planned Parenthood perform abortions with federal funds? Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: uselesslegs on April 07, 2011, 05:00:37 pm More questions... Why is there a policy rider to the budget defunding Planned Parenthood to prevent abortions? Since when does Planned Parenthood perform abortions with federal funds? I believe there are 500 riders. I'm not sure which Rep. on the floor went right for the, "If you don't pass this, you're against the military, troops, blah-blah", but that made me just shy of livid to hear the words. When people start playing that card, knowing they've set up ass loads of conditions in the process and STILL dare you to cross that line...I want to throat punch. It really gets under my skin. Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 07, 2011, 05:37:44 pm "If you don't pass this, you're against the military, troops, blah-blah Dammit. That was my next question! That was the breaking point for me today. They're even calling it "The Troop Funding Bill" now! What's sad is the millions of idiots out there who'll believe it. New question: Was it a Democrat who wanted to do away with veteran's disability? Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 08, 2011, 06:38:17 pm I suspect Think Progress isn't lying about this:
http://twitter.com/#!/thinkprogress/statuses/56457832400297985 Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 08, 2011, 06:41:48 pm Have I said recently that Rush is an idiot? And a racist?
Quote "If the troops still engage in battle, if they go to war and execute the orders issued by their commanders, if the troops are thus not paid by their commander in chief, are they his slaves? What would you call it? Can those serving in the military just walk off the job? I don't think so. So if Obama does not sign the bill to pay his troops, then it sounds sort of like forced labor to me. I mean, it's one thing, folks -- and we can all agree on this -- it's one thing to have to pick cotton. But to be forced to risk your life overseas without being paid, that's the worst kind of forced labor to me. Are you kidding me? [...] "If the president refuses to fund the troops, if the commander in chief refuses to pay the troops - and congressman Jim Moran in Virginia tells a voter who wants to know why the troops aren't being paid to shut up and sit down, and if these guys expect these troops to stay on the job, it sure sounds like Obama has more in common with President Jefferson Davis than he does with President Lincoln." At least Huckabee says something right finally: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4634594/huckabee-dont-let-the-government-shut-down-/ Quote "Don't let the government shut down because the consequences of that are going to hurt the Republicans, not the Democrats, and the Republicans can't win this battle when you get down to it. "In other words, nobody's more pro-life than me. Nobody. But as much as I want to see Planned Parenthood defunded, as much as I want to see NPR lose their funding, the reality is, the president and the Senate are never going to go along with that. So, win the deal you can win, live to fight another day, and fight the Paul Ryan battle because that's the one that will change America for the future and the next generation." Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 08, 2011, 08:09:58 pm I heard from a friend in DC that the republicans have caved, the Planned Parenthood provision Boehner has been denying all day is not the sticking point has been tabled, and the shutdown will be averted.
More soon as I get it. Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 08, 2011, 08:45:47 pm According to The National Journal:
Quote Numerous GOP and Democratic sources on and off Capitol Hill tell National Journal the outline of the deal is as follows: up to $39 billion in cuts from the 2010 budget, $514 billion for the defense budget covering the remainder of this fiscal year, a GOP agreement to abandon controversial policy riders dealing with Planned Parenthood and the EPA, and an agreement to pass a “bridge” continuing resolution tonight to keep the government operating while the deal is written in bill form. Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: ekg on April 08, 2011, 09:36:43 pm I suspect Think Progress isn't lying about this: http://twitter.com/#!/thinkprogress/statuses/56457832400297985 link no work for the non-twitterers ;) Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 08, 2011, 09:58:30 pm link no work for the non-twitterers ;) You are sooooo last century. ;D Basically there are emails in their possession that it's all been about Planned Parenthood. Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: ekg on April 08, 2011, 10:10:42 pm You are sooooo last century. ;D Basically there are emails in their possession that it's all been about Planned Parenthood. of course it is.. it's always about what someone is doing in their bedroom or their doctor's office.. Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 08, 2011, 10:25:18 pm Of courwe they'd all be bitching when all those unwanted babies born because the mother and father didn't get counseling and contraception from Planned Parenthood ended up in the welfare system. Or dead.
Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 08, 2011, 11:09:41 pm I heard from a friend in DC that the republicans have caved, the Planned Parenthood provision Boehner has been denying all day is not the sticking point has been tabled, and the shutdown will be averted. More soon as I get it. You heard it here first! Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: ekg on April 09, 2011, 12:28:20 pm It is sad to see that even John Kyl will lie..
then again, maybe he's just gullible and believed what someone else told him.. either way, that's a pretty sad day when something like that happens.. Quote Jon Kyl Is Sorry If He Gave Anyone The Impression That The Things He Says In Public Are Factual As you may recall, during today's lengthy Pap Smear Armageddon/Government Shutdown 2011 pageant play, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) stood on the floor of the upper chamber, telling the C-Span cameras and gathered attendees that abortion was "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." That prompted many people to remark, "Uhm, actually, you have got those statistics just about as wrong as you possibly could." But now, Kyl's office has walked back the statement, in perhaps the most hilarious and cowardly way possible. Let's kick this over to Alex Seitz-Wald, at ThinkProgress: Quote This afternoon, CNN brought on Planned Parenthood's Judy Tabar to discuss his comment. During the interview, CNN anchor Don Lemon relayed a statement from Kyl's office walking back the comment, claiming the statement was not meant to be "factual": LEMON: We did call his office trying to ask what he was talking about there. And I just want to give it you verbatim here. It says, 'his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/jon-kyl-is-sorry-if-he-ga_n_846941.html If it wasn't meant to be factual, then why use it as the reason for the bill? Why would you intentionally make something up just to pass a bill your party wants passed? this kind of rhetoric speaks volumes to just how far they will go to get what they want.. so far as to just intentionally make stuff up and if you catch them, great, they'll clarify that they didn't really mean for you to take it as real.. but if you don't catch them? all the better? I really do wonder if Kyle would have clarified that he wasn't being 'factual' had he not been caught.. Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: Howey on April 09, 2011, 04:16:09 pm There are some among my crowd of progressives that think the Prez should have not compromised with the pubs.
Although I disagree, I can see their point. In today's politics one must deal with the hand dealt them. I'm beginning to think we need a new term for us: "Pragmatic Progressive". Anyhow, this is the best quote I've read so fa as to what Obama could have said but didn't in his speech: Quote "Look, I'm not thrilled with how this came together, but I was negotiating with rabid conservatives and didn't want a shutdown. If folks wanted a better outcome, voters shouldn't have elected intemperate children to run the House of Representatives. Don't blame me for your bad decisions." Title: Re: SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN.. Post by: ekg on April 09, 2011, 08:37:47 pm There are some among my crowd of progressives that think the Prez should have not compromised with the pubs. Although I disagree, I can see their point. In today's politics one must deal with the hand dealt them. I'm beginning to think we need a new term for us: "Pragmatic Progressive". Anyhow, this is the best quote I've read so fa as to what Obama could have said but didn't in his speech: that sounds like something Chuck and I dream of him saying one day.. HA! |