and i'm just gonna repost this because it bears repeating

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... one-graph/

One thing that's gotten lost in the debate over the shutdown is how much Democrats have already conceded to Republicans on spending. This is partly the consequence of the direct spending cuts in the 2011 debt-ceiling deal and partly the consequence of sequestration (which was, of course, also part of the 2011 deal). Still, the bottom line is that Republicans have been so successful at making Obamacare concessions the issue that Democratic concessions on spending have gone almost unnoticed.

Obama/dems have absolutely no incentive to negotiate with these guys. the goal posts will never stop moving

it's like i've said before, shut up republicans and take winning on the economic issues like a man and don't blow up the economy. unless that's the goal.

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I understand that argument, and it is the logical response in defense of the DOJ's position. I don't think my objection is so much to the actuality of the DOJ's decision not to emphasize enforcement of federal marijuana prohibitions in Colorado & Washington, but rather to their announcement that they intended to suspend enforcement. You don't want to allocate your resources to marijuana crime? Fine, if you quietly reassign agents to other cases and make no public comment.

But validating states that "go rogue" and openly defy federal laws by announcing that you will do nothing in particular to assert the primacy of federal law? That's an open invitation to South Dakota to outlaw abortion, to Mississippi to suspend the civil rights act, etc. I realize that the DOJ will not permit some of these things to go on, but they open themselves to a perfectly legitimate question in those cases: if the people of Washington & Colorado can essentially void federal laws they disagree with, why can't the people of any state do the same, regardless of the law they are voiding?

The executive branch cannot, according to the Constitution, decide which laws passed by Congress they choose to enforce.

This only matters if you care about following the Constitution over doing what you think is right.

I agree that the letter-of-the-law requires equal enforcement of all laws on the books, but, in practice, we all know resources are limited and until unlimited ones are finally invented, there will always be a certain degree of "emphasis" involved (i.e., picking your battles, etc.)

Having said that, I don't think the DOJ should announce that it intends to waive enforcement of this or that law, particularly in reaction to a state's repudiation of a particular law. I think principle has to matter for something, and if you believe (as I do) that the federal government's laws take primacy over state laws, and that states are not free to do whatever they damn well please, you are obligated to lay the smack down against a state that decides to openly deft federal law, even if they are doing so on a point you may agree with (as I agree that marijuana should be legal).

I anticipate that a response to this would be that the only way any national politician would ever be willing to spend political capital on something ultimately as trivial as legalizing marijuana would be if the states had all but done so already and it became more a matter of repealing a blue law than repealing an actively enforced statute. Though this may be true, my feeling is: too bad.

The main difference is in the two examples, abortion and voting rights, there is an identifiable person who has lost their civil rights or civil liberties. Failing to enforce marijuana laws does neither.

Depends on if you believe a fetus has civil liberties, doesn't it?

Wait you are talking about states banning abortions right? The right being lost is the women's right to choose.

The biggest difference here is standing. If the state unduly restricts your right to abortion or voting beyond a certain point, you as an individual can sue. That makes it less worth it for states to directly contradict federal laws in those cases, and a lot more likely that the feds will step in preemptively before it even gets to the courts.

And as far as the weed stuff goes, yeah it's a federal law but it's highly dependent on the states enforcing it. Without the state support they can't really do it effectively. And it's simple to say "Oh they just shouldn't say anything" but I don't think that is realistic to be honest.

td11 wrote:

Yesterday, Rand Paul tweeted that the solution to the debt ceiling crisis is for the United States to “cut up the credit card and balance our budget.”

Interesting, considering how since 2009, the budget has been balanced more rapidly than at any time in modern history. A congressman from Florida, Dennis Ross wrote yesterday, “For the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row.” Ross is a Republican who supports a the passage of a clean continuing resolution, and Politifact declared his statement to be unequivocally “TRUE.” Of course it is.

The deficit, specifically related to Paul’s call for a balanced budget, has declined by more than 50 percent and, by the end of the president’s second term, it will have dropped to around two percent of GDP. That’s superb especially considering the deficit was a record $1.4 trillion four years ago.

As for the debt, do we really need to do this dance again? Yes, the debt is high, continues to rise and long-term debt will eventually become problematic. But why is the current debt so high? Several things, according to CBPP and Bloomberg: two wars during the Bush years; the Bush tax cuts; the Great Recession; and the bailouts (TARP, the stimulus, etc). So if the GOP is this radically against long-term debt, why didn’t they speak up years ago? A question for the ages.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/10/in-wh ... rah-palin/

CBO numbers, they're in the pocket of Congress!

Phan In Phlorida wrote:No militay death benefits for you

Fortunately, this atrocity has been resolved. "Disgraceful" is not even in the same universe of describing how low this goes. Our representatives really should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, to feel shame you actually have to have a heart and a soul; those are urban legends to most in Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/09/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Werthless wrote:

SK790 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Democrats did not filibuster, did not shut down the government. They put up a protest vote and did not demand that he get rid of something they previously lost on. There is a difference and you know that.

Government shut downs happen all the time, many of times at the hands of the Democrats. In fact, it's happened when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and executive branch (list of shutdowns). What's your point that the situations were not identical?

yes, the democrats in the 80s were terrible. what does this have to do with 2013 again?

Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit. The whole "This is an unprecedented and evil move that YOUR party is doing" talk is annoying. I don't even support the GOP position on this (they don't really seem to not have a coherent and attainable objective), but what it comes down to is this:

1. In the short term, we should be increasing the debt ceiling so that government can continue to operate.
1a. GOP are jackasses for trying to stop this without a reasonable ransom (we're not undoing Obamacare this week).
1b. Administration are jackasses for attempting to inflict maximum damage of shutdown on American people.
2. As it's happened a dozen times in the last few years, Congress wants to extract concessions to push back debt ceiling.
3. Presidents are relatively powerless against this budget impasse, in that they cannot clearly unilaterally act.
4. Obama didn't support debt ceiling raises in his past life as a Senator. Congresspeople are often stupid self important people who are less interested in an effective/efficient government than they should be.
5. New GOP folks are trying to govern according to the will of the people in their district that elected them. Since they often ran on anti-goverment platforms, what they are doing is not surprising at all. It may even be considered in their political self interest, even if it's not in the self interest of the collective US.
7. We need some systematic reform of how Congress deals with debt ceilings. Both parties seem unwilling to legislate them away. In principle, since Congress also controls the budgetary process, there is no reason to have a debt ceiling law unless it is a deliberate attempt to create an opportunity for this very grandstanding to occur.
8. We must always pay our debt.
9. We must always pay our debt or we're fucked.

1. Agree
a. Yes.
b. This whole maximum damage thing is complete and utter BS and I'm fucking sick of hearing about it. Closing down memorials and whatnot is not inflicting maximum damage and I bet if you told that to any of the ~2MM people who are currently not getting paid, they'd laugh at you. Or how about the dozen of people who can't start their government funded cancer treatment while the shutdown is going on? Can we please stop talking about the national parks and monuments like they're some key issue in this? They're not. This whole thing is the most disgusting and disingenuous grandstanding I've seen from members of Congress in sometime. Millions of peoples ACTUAL LIVES are being hurt by this and all these people can talk about is how there are some memorials and national parks shut down. Like that doesn't pale in comparison to making a living or starting treatment for cancer.
2. Yes, although actually going through with it is much different, isn't it?
3. Yes.
4. You're misconstruing his words, clearly. He said that we should be more responsible and should work to getting to a point where we don't even have to have this debate. I posted a link a few pages back that has shown debt decreasing at the largest rate wince WW2, so I guess kudos to Obama for working towards his goal.
5. That's true, but you can represent your constituents while not holding the federal government hostage. There have been a lot of Republicans coming out within the recent days that have pretty much said that they've voted for Obamacare, but don't want to cause harm to millions of federal employees by dragging this out. I give a lot of credit to those men and women, because it'd be really easy to jump on this bandwagon if you were against Obamacare. I'm glad many on the Republican side see this as ridiculous, and quite honestly, a childish way to
There is no 6.
7-9. 100% agree.

Yesterday, Rand Paul tweeted that the solution to the debt ceiling crisis is for the United States to “cut up the credit card and balance our budget.”

Does cutting up the credit card mean that I don't have to pay for what I already charged? Why haven't I tried this already?

SK790 wrote:This whole maximum damage thing is complete and utter BS and I'm fucking sick of hearing about it. Closing down memorials and whatnot is not inflicting maximum damage and I bet if you told that to any of the ~2MM people who are currently not getting paid, they'd laugh at you. ... Can we please stop talking about the national parks and monuments like they're some key issue in this? They're not.

It's feigned outrage that's disingenuous. Even unstaffed natl parks and monuments need to be policed to prevent maliciousness (vandalism, etc.) and potential liability issues from general dumbassery. Shutdown = no one to police them.

SK790 wrote:There is no 6.

The number 6 was furloughed because of the guvmint shutdown. Thanks Obama.

SK790 wrote:b. This whole maximum damage thing is complete and utter BS and I'm fucking sick of hearing about it. Closing down memorials and whatnot is not inflicting maximum damage and I bet if you told that to any of the ~2MM people who are currently not getting paid, they'd laugh at you. Or how about the dozen of people who can't start their government funded cancer treatment while the shutdown is going on? Can we please stop talking about the national parks and monuments like they're some key issue in this? They're not. This whole thing is the most disgusting and disingenuous grandstanding I've seen from members of Congress in sometime. Millions of peoples ACTUAL LIVES are being hurt by this and all these people can talk about is how there are some memorials and national parks shut down. Like that doesn't pale in comparison to making a living or starting treatment for cancer.

But the Administration's stance goes far beyond the national parks stuff, even though their approach there is emblematic of their overall strategy.

The House GOP has passed a bill requiring federal employees deemed essential are paid on time (White House has said it would veto if the Senate were to pass it), and that employees who are not working will be paid when government reopens (stalled in Senate). And to make sure cancer treatments occur (stalled in Senate; White House veto threat). And to let DC spend its own tax revenue (stalled in Senate; White House veto threat), which led to Mayor Gray crashing Harry Reid's press conference today and yelling at him. Etc.

Obama said yesterday he isn't interested in bills like these because they would help relieve political pressure on Republicans, and they do, but this thing isn't getting fixed until they sit down and come up with some type of compromise. He prefers things are as bad as possible in the hopes that it causes the overall shutdown to end sooner and/or Republicans to suffer politically for these bad things happening. I don't think he's right that it'll make things end quicker, but he's spot on with the GOP taking it on the chin in polls.

Ut oh. They might close the congressional gym.




Edit: Boehner declares congressional gym "essential".

Edit: Congress has deemed gym and other congressional perks "essential". Shutdown waived. Crisis averted.

Shutdown suspends cleanup at 505 toxic waste sites.

Mars rover responds to its mission staff furloughs by drawing a giant dong on the surface of Mars.





I made that up. The rover drew that dong months ago.

jerseyhoya wrote:this thing isn't getting fixed until they sit down and come up with some type of compromise.

The compromises were reached and the ACA was enacted.

I think the only way this gets solved is if Obama says, OK, if you want to negotiate with the government shut down and the threat of government default hanging over us, let's negotiate. But if one existing law is on the table, then everything is on the table. Everything. And that includes the capital gains tax, estate tax, minimum wage, immigration, etc. Let's do the Grand Bargain right now. If the ACA is on the table, then so is everything else.

This guy running against booker is a fucking twat

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:b. This whole maximum damage thing is complete and utter BS and I'm #$!&@ sick of hearing about it. Closing down memorials and whatnot is not inflicting maximum damage and I bet if you told that to any of the ~2MM people who are currently not getting paid, they'd laugh at you. Or how about the dozen of people who can't start their government funded cancer treatment while the shutdown is going on? Can we please stop talking about the national parks and monuments like they're some key issue in this? They're not. This whole thing is the most disgusting and disingenuous grandstanding I've seen from members of Congress in sometime. Millions of peoples ACTUAL LIVES are being hurt by this and all these people can talk about is how there are some memorials and national parks shut down. Like that doesn't pale in comparison to making a living or starting treatment for cancer.

But the Administration's stance goes far beyond the national parks stuff, even though their approach there is emblematic of their overall strategy.

The House GOP has passed a bill requiring federal employees deemed essential are paid on time (White House has said it would veto if the Senate were to pass it), and that employees who are not working will be paid when government reopens (stalled in Senate). And to make sure cancer treatments occur (stalled in Senate; White House veto threat). And to let DC spend its own tax revenue (stalled in Senate; White House veto threat), which led to Mayor Gray crashing Harry Reid's press conference today and yelling at him. Etc.

Obama said yesterday he isn't interested in bills like these because they would help relieve political pressure on Republicans, and they do, but this thing isn't getting fixed until they sit down and come up with some type of compromise. He prefers things are as bad as possible in the hopes that it causes the overall shutdown to end sooner and/or Republicans to suffer politically for these bad things happening. I don't think he's right that it'll make things end quicker, but he's spot on with the GOP taking it on the chin in polls.

the compromise HAPPENED already.

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:this thing isn't getting fixed until they sit down and come up with some type of compromise.

The compromises were reached and the ACA was enacted.

I think the only way this gets solved is if Obama says, OK, if you want to negotiate with the government shut down and the threat of government default hanging over us, let's negotiate. But if one existing law is on the table, then everything is on the table. Everything. And that includes the capital gains tax, estate tax, minimum wage, immigration, etc. Let's do the Grand Bargain right now. If the ACA is on the table, then so is everything else.

the CR is the compromise, as well

The Capitol Subway System... which Senators, Congress peeps, staff, and visitors use to shuttle between the Capitol and the senate and house office buildings on a ~30 second voyage without having to go outside... declared "essential".


(make your own obvious and obligatory jokes about this and the gym)

CalvinBall wrote:This guy running against booker is a #$!&@ #$!&@

wha happen

Booker was talking about how the EPA is is important bc it helps keep the Delaware clean. Lonegan said people don't have to worry about pollution but all the bodies floating in it from Newark. My god.