• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US Federal Government Shutdown | Shutdown Shutdown, Debt Ceiling Raised

Status
Not open for further replies.
jakonovski said:
A Democrat soundbite? How about...

"We don't negotiate with terrorists, even if they're Republicans."
Click to expand...

Would be great if actually true. After all, Obama is more than willing to negotiate with Iran, which the Obama administration themselves admit supports terrorists in Syria, and against Israel.
 
SoldierGryphon said:
Would be great if actually true. After all, Obama is more than willing to negotiate with Iran, which the Obama administration themselves admit supports terrorists in Syria, and against Israel.
Click to expand...

Is this really the time and place to start fomenting anti-Iran sentiments? Unless of course you're pro-shutdown yourself.
 
jakonovski said:
Is this really the time and place to start fomenting anti-Iran sentiments?
Click to expand...

What? Who is pro-Iran?

And that was more of a criticism of the administration than Iran.

Unless of course you're pro-shutdown yourself.
Click to expand...

Uh no. I never ever EVER said anything remotely resembling that. I am not in favor of the shutdown and am more than aware Republicans are responsible for it, and I'm more than aware it will hurt their chances come 2014 election day.

I think Republicans are incredibly stupid for doing this.
 
"Is the government still shut down? Why do we still pay taxes if the governments shut down?"

--person sitting behind me

CAN'T ARGUE THAT
 
watershed said:
The one benefit that may come out of this, for our country and for the republican party, is the defanging of the tea party wing of the republican party. If the shutdown continues until the 17th or so and Boehner brings the Senate passed clean CR plus debt ceiling bill to a vote, the bill will pass with majority democratic support and some republican support. The tea party wing will have lost entirely with no concessions from Obama, the ACA continuing to go into effect, the shutdown will end, and the debt ceiling will be raised, This might mean that republicans in congress will never bend to the will of the tea party wing again.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I could see it just as easily going the other way - a failure to overthrow the evil Obama would only galvanize them even more.
 
Prologue said:
What happens when nothing really changes and the debt ceiling hits? I don't see Obama nudging and the republicans aren't doing this just to fold anytime soon.
Click to expand...
From the ways things are going, I think the debt ceiling will get a small bump that will last for about 6 months, so it can pass without to much trouble, the republicans can keep on using the shut down as a bargaining chip, and make use of the debt ceiling bargaining chip properly in a few months. They can raise the limit even if the government is still shut down.
 
Yeah. I'm sure if Dems have the majority in Congress as a whole again, the Debt Cieling as a concept will probably either go away or is raised automatically without vote in the most logical way, counting market factors as well.
 
Dax01 said:
There are several people in politics threads whom you need to watch out for trolling: Jamesinclair, Bulbo, and occasionally PhoenixPause.
Click to expand...
That PhoenixDark stuff last year was weird, it's like he was doing some weird performance art in the Obama threads until the election, then he dropped it.
 
Gaze into the face of the Tea Party:

wapo said:
A year ago, Yoho was a large-animal veterinarian in north Florida who had never held elected office. Today, he is part of one of the most influential voting blocs in the House of Representatives, the hard-line conservatives who pushed their own leadership into a risky showdown over President Obama’s health-care law.

Right now — with national parks closed and workers furloughed and cancer studies shut down — Yoho is supposed to be learning a hard lesson, about being careful what you wish for.

He is not.

Instead, Yoho has felt little pressure to change his mind, either from inside the Capitol or outside it. His leaders are still weak and uneasy. His constituents — or at least the small slice that bothers to write or call him — are mostly supportive. And his defiance has made him far more powerful than a freshman congressman has any right to expect.

So he’s already planning for a bigger act of defiance.

“You’re seeing the tremor before the tsunami here,” Yoho said. “I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling.”...

“I see one side of our government, or two-thirds of it, running 100 miles an hour toward socialism,” Yoho said, meaning Obama and the Democratic-led Senate. He knows people agree with him on that, he said, because he asks people about it at town-hall meetings: “ ‘How many people feel we’re heading into socialism?’ Hands go up.”...

Now, Yoho is ready for a bigger fight. He doesn’t want to raise the debt ceiling — ever again. The experts, and Republican leaders, say that would trigger a financial catastrophe.

But Yoho didn’t listen to them about the shutdown. And look how that turned out.

“I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we’re] going broke,” Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. “I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,” since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.

In the middle of this defiance, the phone rings. Yoho takes it himself. “Hello, Congressman Yoho’s office.”

There’s a pause. “Do ya?” he says. Pause. “Mmm-hmm.”

It’s a constituent, Greg from Gainesville, who is telling Yoho he’s wrong on the shutdown. There are people in Yoho’s district losing aid and pay because of the government shutdown, Greg says. It’s time to pass a “clean” funding bill and reopen the government.

“I mean, we do have a lot of need all over the area,” Yoho told him, sounding sympathetic. “And we’re working on getting something resolved here, as fast as we can.”

He hung up. So what was that about? Is Yoho really working to get this shutdown resolved as fast as he can?

Yoho said nothing had changed. He would not give another inch.

“Is there any more the Republicans can do?” he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b5aa8c-2c3c-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_print.html
 
Pop-O-Matic said:
Nah, that make's it sound like the Dems aren't negotiating with them because of their own partisan bullshit.
Click to expand...

And that's not happening? If you think that politicians are more concerned about Americans than they are about getting funded next election, you're delusional.

TacticalFox88 said:
Yeah. I'm sure if Dems have the majority in Congress as a whole again, the Debt Cieling as a concept will probably either go away or is raised automatically without vote in the most logical way, counting market factors as well.
Click to expand...

Nope, it'll stay for the same reason that Democrats bawked at nuking the filibuster: they're afraid that next time they need to obstruct some Republican legislation, they'll won't be able to use the "shutdown" bargaining chip.
 
If Obama does it, it's not going to be until the twilight hour.

He doesn't gain much from doing it right now, but allowing the US to default is going to be worse than any effect it has on his legacy or the next Dem presidential campaign.
 
After all this crap is resolved. Is it possible to take some of the crazies to court for something?

Reckless endangerment or something?
 
TheRedSnifit said:
And that's not happening? If you think that politicians are more concerned about Americans than they are about getting funded next election, you're delusional.
Click to expand...

You really have to try a little harder with your posts. It's not necessary to postulate ulterior motives when the basic motive that negotiating over the basic function of government is normalizing chaos is pretty complete and obvious. Sure, if you want you, you can just assume that everybody's corrupt, but I wouldn't anticipate much traction.

TheRedSnifit said:
Nope, it'll stay for the same reason that Democrats bawked at nuking the filibuster: they're afraid that next time they need to obstruct some Republican legislation, they'll won't be able to use the "shutdown" bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

The Democrats have already repeatedly pushed legislation that would remove the debt ceiling for all practical purposes, so this is just an ignorant comment. Unsurprising, since it clearly doesn't seem to recognize the fact that attempting to negotiate over the debt ceiling is unprecedented extortion.
 
pigeon said:
You really have to try a little harder with your posts. It's not necessary to postulate ulterior motives when the basic motive that negotiating over the basic function of government is normalizing chaos is pretty complete and obvious. Sure, if you want you, you can just assume that everybody's corrupt, but I wouldn't anticipate much traction.
Click to expand...

S'cuse me for being cynical about a government that exempts itself from its own laws.


The Democrats have already repeatedly pushed legislation that would remove the debt ceiling for all practical purposes, so this is just an ignorant comment. Unsurprising, since it clearly doesn't seem to recognize the fact that attempting to negotiate over the debt ceiling is unprecedented extortion.
Click to expand...

The Democrats have also pushed legislation that would eliminate the filibuster (as have Republicans); there's a reason that legislation like this never garners support beyond party zealots. And "unprecedented" is a weird way of describing the fourteenth full shutdown since 1979.
 
TheRedSnifit said:
S'cuse me for being cynical about a government that exempts itself from its own laws.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify what you're referring to?

TheRedSnifit said:
The Democrats have also pushed legislation that would eliminate the filibuster (as have Republicans); there's a reason that legislation like this never garners support beyond party zealots. And "unprecedented" is a weird way of describing the fourteenth full shutdown since 1979.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between the debt ceiling and the end of continuing appropriations?
 
To be fair, pigeon, he might not know the difference but he's accidentally correct that it's not unprecedented. The reason we're in this mess with the government shutdown is that the Dems gave in when the GOP took the debt ceiling hostage in 2011.
 
Cyan said:
To be fair, pigeon, he might not know the difference but he's accidentally correct that it's not unprecedented. The reason we're in this mess with the government shutdown is that the Dems gave in when the GOP took the debt ceiling hostage in 2011.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, but I would argue that the GOP negotiations in 2011 were unprecedented. In either case, it's incorrect to suggest that the Democrats and Republicans are at all similar in their positions on this issue. (At least today. They used to be quite similar in their positions in that they both agreed that the debt ceiling was bullshit.)
 
pigeon said:
That's a fair point, but I would argue that the GOP negotiations in 2011 were unprecedented. In either case, it's incorrect to suggest that the Democrats and Republicans are at all similar in their positions on this issue. (At least today. They used to be quite similar in their positions in that they both agreed that the debt ceiling was bullshit.)
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, I wasn't even really disagreeing with you. ;)
 
pigeon said:
Could you clarify what you're referring to?
Click to expand...

Obamacare's an obvious example. It was initially written into the law that the law effected everybody, but Congress went ballistic, and are now exempt from their own law.


Do you know the difference between the debt ceiling and the end of continuing appropriations?
Click to expand...

There might be a misunderstanding here. I thought we were talking about literally eliminating the debt ceiling - not raising it, eliminating it.

Democratic leadership (and Republicans, at one point) wanted to eliminate the debt ceiling specifically because it's being used to obstruct legislation; similarly, Democratic leadership (and again, Republicans) wanted to eliminate filibusters because they were being used to obstruct nominees. In both cases, the rank-and-file Democrats/Republicans backed off, afraid that they wouldn't be able to use them in the future.
 
I think there should be Texas style rules for filibusters on the National level. As it stands, as far as I recall, they only have to say 'Hey, I am going to filibuster.' and the bill is shelved? That's f'ed up.

Or get rid of them entirely.
 
Fiction said:
I think there should be Texas style rules for filibusters on the National level. As it stands, as far as I recall, they only have to say 'Hey, I am going to filibuster.' and the bill is shelved? That's f'ed up.

Or get rid of them entirely.
Click to expand...

You have to stand around and talk forever, delaying a bill/nominee indefinitely unless there's a supermajority. It's fucked up, but it's not going away anytime soon.
 
TheRedSnifit said:
You have to stand around and talk forever, delaying a bill/nominee indefinitely unless there's a supermajority. It's fucked up, but it's not going away anytime soon.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, on the national level, you don't have to stand and talk at all. You just have to say you are going to do that, and they will shelve the bill.
 
You should be required to actually be at the podium, and cannot fall asleep.

I always thought the "can't sit down" rule is kind of fucked up since technically under Texas law and other chambers, someone that has to use a wheelchair can be blocked from filibustering just because they are disabled.
 
FyreWulff said:
You should be required to actually be at the podium, and cannot fall asleep.

I always thought the "can't sit down" rule is kind of fucked up since technically under Texas law and other chambers, someone that has to use a wheelchair can be blocked from filibustering just because they are disabled.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true, but after witnessing Wendy's performance, it seems like the national level is playing suuuuppppeeeer soft ball with them. We never see anything like that, and maybe they'd be less likely to use them if they actually had to work for it. I'd rather just outlaw them entirely, but...
 
Fiction said:
Yeah, that's true, but after witnessing Wendy's performance, it seems like the national level is playing suuuuppppeeeer soft ball with them. We never see anything like that, and maybe they'd be less likely to use them if they actually had to work for it. I'd rather just outlaw them entirely, but...
Click to expand...

It's so soft that senators said they were going to filibuster.. then took a plane back home while "filibustering"

Anonymous holds can diaf
 
Rand Paul is on Meet the Press and nothing he is saying follows any kind of logic. Its got to be frustrating to be a journalist and try to get sensible answers from politicians, GOP crazies in particular.
 
TheRedSnifit said:
Obamacare's an obvious example. It was initially written into the law that the law effected everybody, but Congress went ballistic, and are now exempt from their own law.
Click to expand...

See, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one, because the "Congressional exemption from Obamacare" has been debunked in this very thread already, even by right-wing sources like the National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359742/obamacare-non-exemption-patrick-brennan

It's simply false, and all that's necessary to know it's false is to read more than the headline of any story about the Grassley amendment. So I was hoping you meant something else. Alas.

TheRedSnifit said:
There might be a misunderstanding here. I thought we were talking about literally eliminating the debt ceiling - not raising it, eliminating it.

Democratic leadership (and Republicans, at one point) wanted to eliminate the debt ceiling specifically because it's being used to obstruct legislation; similarly, Democratic leadership (and again, Republicans) wanted to eliminate filibusters because they were being used to obstruct nominees. In both cases, the rank-and-file Democrats/Republicans backed off, afraid that they wouldn't be able to use them in the future.
Click to expand...

Given your track record, I'd like to see some proof that Democrats backed off the debt ceiling because they want to be able to threaten not to raise it in the future. It sounds kind of like a false equivalence to me! The Democrats were pushing for the McConnell rule (which would functionally eliminate the debt ceiling) as recently as the beginning of the year. In fact, when McConnell submitted a bill to "prove" Democrats didn't really want to do it, Reid held a vote on it, and McConnell filibustered his own bill!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ces-mcconnell-to-filibuster-his-own-proposal/

So, again, it kind of looks like you're just advancing talking points with no actual evidence.
 
Escape Goat said:
Rand Paul is on Meet the Press and nothing he is saying follows any kind of logic. Its got to be frustrating to be a journalist and try to get sensible answers from politicians, GOP crazies in particular.
Click to expand...
The job of most media these days is asking questions, not getting answers.
 
Escape Goat said:
Rand Paul is on Meet the Press and nothing he is saying follows any kind of logic. Its got to be frustrating to be a journalist and try to get sensible answers from politicians, GOP crazies in particular.
Click to expand...
I didn't watch it, but can I safely assume the person/people interviewing him didn't bother calling him out on anything?
 
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...wasserman-schultz-obamacare-congress.cnn.html

See, this is scary (albeit recorded before shutdown). CNN painting it as both sides not coming together. DNC chair did an awful job letting that talking point stand. She talks about why the Dems shouldn't negotiate -- that's not entirely illegitimate, but she can't let them get away with saying both sides aren't negotiating. Crowley accuses Reid of being has hardlined as Beohner but the Senate actually voted on the proposals from the House. The House doesn't even vote on what the Senate sends their way -- it's such a false equivalence.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/#53201575 the Dem congresswoman is adopting the same tactic here -- failing to mention the compromises Dems have already taken. Defending the "will not negotiate" stance.

Here's a clip from the Rand Paul MTP interview: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/#53201521

Paul deflects every question and responds as if she asked him about the Dems. He continues to call it a Dem shutdown and argue that the GOP isn't responsible. Of course, she doesn't call him on any of it.

Shutting down the gov over Obamacare has been planned ahead of time by the GOP: http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanriebe/joint-letter-on-sequester-savings

GOP shouldn't be able to get away with blaming Dems, but the media is letting them. Going unanswered, I have full confidence that polls will shift toward blaming both parties equally. Dems need to counter the false equivalencies or they'll be forced to concede under pressure.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ng-without-negotiations-with-president-obama/

Beohner flat out denies that there's enough House votes. If that's true, I guess there's no harm in him holding the vote anyway. It's not like Beohner has anything against voting on and passing things that have no chance of going anywhere.

Is there some clause where interviewers can't have followups after calling someone out? Stephonopolis or whatever his name is does a decent job pointing out the logical inconsistencies, but then he just moves on after Beohner gives a bullshit answer.
 
Style Fox said:
Face the facts man, one side is using dirty tactics to get what they want.
Click to expand...

I was only commenting on the use of the term, "false equivalence." You don't see it in common use everywhere ... only in certain corners of the internet. The Atlantic, DailyKos, mediamatters, ThinkProgress, ... GAF. From all appearances, progressives just love the fuck out this term, though it's not like it's a new concept or anything. Until just a few years ago (less than 10, I guess) I'm not sure I ever encountered the phrase, "false equivalence." It serves as a kind of password, like early Christians drawing a fish in the dirt with their toe, letting others of your kind know that you're one of them. It's herdspeak; A linguistic bludgeon taken up almost exclusively by one side of the great political debate as a euphemism for the other sides', "lies." I find it fascinating.


.
 
Bodacious said:
I was only commenting on the use of the term, "false equivalence." You don't see it in common use everywhere ... only in certain corners of the internet. The Atlantic, DailyKos, mediamatters, ThinkProgress, ... GAF. From all appearances, progressives just love the fuck out this term, though it's not like it's a new concept or anything. Until just a few years ago (less than 10, I guess) I'm not sure I ever encountered the phrase, "false equivalence." It serves as a kind of password, like early Christians drawing a fish in the dirt with their toe, letting others of your kind know that you're one of them. It's herdspeak; A linguistic bludgeon taken up almost exclusively by one side of the great political debate as a euphemism for the other sides', "lies." I find it fascinating.
Click to expand...

What a strange sentiment. You didn't see it ten years ago because back then the media wasn't being brow-beaten into developing a sense of "neutrality". Now the mass media constantly portrays politics as a he-said she-said debate, without ever saying "Oh by the way, what she said was a total fabrication and in no way based on any facts".

So you have all these people saying "Those clowns in congress are up to no good again, I say we vote them all out!" when the real problem lies with one particular group in one particular party.

And that's called a false equivalence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

US GAF, you too can now send money to help pay off the US National Debt now!
2
54
1K
DownLikeBCPowder replied
[UK] Digital ID to be compulsory for all UK adults under government plans
2 3 4 5 6
260
3K
Kenneth Haight replied
The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue
1
200
Poppinfresh replied
Paper straws are giving us cancer ? and might be banned soon.
2
56
359
spookyfish replied
Realizing the truth of my debt
2 3
104
6K
jufonuk replied
Top Bottom