Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#352 Apr 07 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
******
30,624 posts
I had heard on the radio that most likely anything that has to do with defense (including the troops) would still get paid as usual.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#353 Apr 07 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm sure Congress will pass a resolution that they don't get paid. It'd be too easy to attack anyone cashing a check.
I would like to believe that, but honestly? Chances are they have direct pay and their money is just put into their account regularly. It would be nice to believe that since they fucked up they should suffer as well, but even if the resolution should pass, there will probably be a passage stating that once its all said and done they'll just get the pay in a future check.

They're not going to suffer, in the least. I just hope that someone in that giant building full of fucktards has the sense that the government workers losing out on pay will similarly get the money in future checks. But, if it isn't obvious, my faith in either party is nonexistent.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#354 Apr 07 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
******
30,624 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I just hope that someone in that giant building full of fucktards has the sense that the government workers losing out on pay will similarly get the money in future checks. But, if it isn't obvious, my faith in either party is nonexistent.


I also heard in the same radio program that the last time a shut down happened, people were given back pay.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#355 Apr 07 2011 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
I would like to believe that, but honestly? Chances are they have direct pay and their money is just put into their account regularly. It would be nice to believe that since they fucked up they should suffer as well, but even if the resolution should pass, there will probably be a passage stating that once its all said and done they'll just get the pay in a future check.

Nah, they'll lose the pay because it's a cheap way to show how they feel your pain. No one in Congress is a paycheck away from foreclosure or bankruptcy. The potential cost of it being revealed that they never lost the money is greater than actually missing a paycheck.

For whatever it's worth, I feel your pain since my family will be directly impacted by a government shutdown as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#356 Apr 07 2011 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I had heard on the radio that most likely anything that has to do with defense (including the troops) would still get paid as usual.
They'll get paid till April 15th, and if the budget isn't approved they won't get the second half on the end of the month. However, they will get back pay for the week or two until its all settled. However, from what I understand parts won't be paid out, like BAH which, depending on where you live and family and such, can be up to $3,000 a month.

Either way, there are more than people in the military that need the money.
Jophiel wrote:
No one in Congress is a paycheck away from foreclosure or bankruptcy.
Not according to Sean Duffy. Smiley: laugh

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 11:45am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#357varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 9:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#358 Apr 07 2011 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The GOP is submitting a CR that'd fund the military through Sept...

...with a policy rider regarding abortion in Washington DC. Because they're just that serious about wanting to see the troops get paid.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#359 Apr 07 2011 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
Giggle. George Carlin said it best. Congress wants more live babies to make into dead soldiers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#360 Apr 07 2011 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The GOP Pledge to America wrote:
Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.

It's the hypocrisy that makes it so funny. And sad.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#361 Apr 07 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The GOP Pledge to America wrote:
Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
It's the hypocrisy that makes it so funny. And sad.
I hope Anthony Weiner is planning to go on the floor of the house to read that to the speaker.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#362varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 10:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#363 Apr 07 2011 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Except that this totally can get done, no problem. So they're not even trying.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#364 Apr 07 2011 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
bsphil wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The GOP Pledge to America wrote:
Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
It's the hypocrisy that makes it so funny. And sad.
I hope Anthony Weiner is planning to go on the floor of the house to read that to the speaker.


Now now, surely keeping the government running isn't "major legislation." I mean, it's just a few billion dollars, right?
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#365 Apr 07 2011 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
It's the hypocrisy that makes it so funny. And sad.


lol...kind of like promising to do something you know can't be done, gitmo.


Could always close it and just release these illegally detained prisoners back into the world. But of course then you would complain about that instead. Ironically it is funny that you are ragging on this "broken" promise, yet the GOP in general seems to be quite content with the fact these "fugitives" are going to be tried. You are funny, I like lunch time in =4, so glad my computer is fixed.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#366 Apr 07 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lol...kind of like promising to do something you know can't be done,
Are we pretending only one side of the aisle does that?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#367 Apr 07 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
******
30,624 posts
bsphil wrote:
I hope Anthony Weiner is planning to go on the floor of the house to read that to the speaker.


I saw a funny segment on The Daily Show from him. He was saying, "I'll make the penis jokes around here. And Boehner? Seriously? Should my name be pronounced Way-nor?

____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#368varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 3:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#369varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 3:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgaxe,
#370 Apr 07 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
The difference being when members of the GOP get caught going back on their word they get un-elected

So you won't vote for any of the Tenn. GOP congressional delegation? Because they're all breaking their pledge right now.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#371 Apr 07 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So we have lots of quotes from liberals claiming that everyone is in agreement, but I still don't see a single one from Boehner saying it. It looks to me like the Dems jumped the gun, proclaimed their proposal to be the one everyone agreed to, shoved that assumption in front of the media, and when the GOP responded with "Wait a minute! We didn't agree to that at all", the Dems are attempting to pretend that because they said it was agreed upon, the GOP has to stick with it.

Wow, you're charmingly naive and easily trained. Boehner had a week to actively push back against the $33B number.


Huh? The only people talking about that number were the Dems Joph. I'm not sure why you insist on reading more into this than "This is the number the Dems wanted so they told the media that's the number they were working towards".

Quote:
He didn't until the next week when he was getting castigated by his own party. You won't be able to find a single source (including Boehner's aides or GOP people actually in the talks) saying any different number.


No source? Except perhaps H.R. 1, in which the number was 61B, right? You're still failing to get that this was the "starting point" of negotiations. Boehner doesn't need to run to the media to tell them what his number is since hs and the House already provided that figure.

Quote:
Know why? Because there was no different number.


Of course there was. You just want to ignore it.

Quote:
Oh, and the March 29 article plainly states that the GOP was coming into the negotiations asking for $36B with the Democrats asking for $30B.


Lol! You are being incredibly naive and cherry picking numbers now. The GOP proposed dropping their number from 61B to 36B *if* that 36B included certain guarantees (like the cuts to the NEA, NPR, and Planned Parenthood which have kinda been part of the whole topic as well). That was the compromise Joph. "We'll drop the number to 36 if you agree to allow these specific cuts". The Dems clearly rejected that, but then insisted on using that 36B number as though it had been offered with no other conditions. And now they're trying to play like it's all super fair to split the difference between that number and their starting number of 30B and arrive at a "compromise" of 33B.


Surely even you can see how that's BS. If there are no conditions, then the compromise needs to be between 61B and 30B, not 36B and 30B as the Dems are trying to get away with. That's why the GOP came back with the insistence on those riders in the bill. They're willing to drop the total number into that range but only if those specific cuts are included. That was and is the only way any number in the 30B range has been considered by the GOP.

Quote:
The same numbers are backed up in the March 30 article from The Hill. The $33B was the compromise between the two of them.


Lol! Sucker.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#372 Apr 07 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Sure. Democrats want no cuts, but brought 30b in cuts to the table. GOP campaigned on 100b in cuts, then said 61b is the actual amount, then brought 36b to the table. 33b is right in the middle, a compromise.


Lol! That's not what happened. That's the fairy tale the Dems are trying to pretend happened. So you think that the GOP just dropped their number from the 61B figure they passed in H.R. 1 down to 36 just because they felt like it? Try actually engaging the brain for a moment instead of just engaging in wishful thinking. I'm sure lots of numbers were bandied about during negotiations. That's why they're called "negotiations". What the Dems are doing is taking the lowest number that ever came out of a Republicans mouth, ignoring all other conditions related to that number, and pretending that that number is somehow the starting point of the GOP negotiations.


Again. stop and think about this. It makes no sense.

Quote:
If Boehner went with it, that would instantly go to the senate, likely be passed, and Obama would sign no problem. You disagree?


What do you think that proves? If the GOP gives the Dems exactly what they want, they'll agree with it? Wow! You're like some kind of negotiating genius right there.

Quote:
Ideology aside, losing popular support when you need it to be elected and actually wield political power is never a good thing for a party.


This is not 1996. All the experts predicting that it will be worse for the GOP than the Dems if this impasse isn't resolved are basing that on what happened in 1996. Today is very different. The average american is much much more directly aware of the economic problems we've got going on right now and are much more likely to associate our debt to those problems. In 1996, the debt level was high, but all other economic indicators were in good shape. People didn't feel the effect of the debt, so shutting down the government over debt didn't resonate with them.


I think it's a grave mistake to assume the public reaction will be the same today.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#373 Apr 07 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The GOP Pledge to America wrote:
Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.

It's the hypocrisy that makes it so funny. And sad.


Huh? It's a budget legislation and the issue is "funding" for abortion clinics which would otherwise be included in said budget. I'm not sure how or why you think the two are unrelated. Now, if they attempt to drop an amendment blocking funding for abortion in an energy bill, you'll have a point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#374 Apr 07 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
If Boehner went with it, that would instantly go to the senate, likely be passed, and Obama would sign no problem. You disagree?


What do you think that proves? If the GOP gives the Dems exactly what they want, they'll agree with it? Wow! You're like some kind of negotiating genius right there.

It proves that varus was full of shit for saying Obama won't sign anything. Which was the point I was responding to? I'm not Joph, I didn't reply to your twisted logic. Varus is just fun to knock down. Cathartic.

Quote:
Quote:
Ideology aside, losing popular support when you need it to be elected and actually wield political power is never a good thing for a party.


This is not 1996. All the experts predicting that it will be worse for the GOP than the Dems if this impasse isn't resolved are basing that on what happened in 1996. Today is very different. The average american is much much more directly aware of the economic problems we've got going on right now and are much more likely to associate our debt to those problems. In 1996, the debt level was high, but all other economic indicators were in good shape. People didn't feel the effect of the debt, so shutting down the government over debt didn't resonate with them.


I think it's a grave mistake to assume the public reaction will be the same today.

Ok, we'll see how it goes then Smiley: nod

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 6:08pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#375 Apr 07 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Lol! You are being incredibly naive and cherry picking numbers now. The GOP proposed dropping their number from 61B to 36B *if* that 36B included certain guarantees (like the cuts to the NEA, NPR, and Planned Parenthood which have kinda been part of the whole topic as well).

I'm not interested in spoon-feeding your ignorance any longer so you go ahead just believing whatever your little radio friends tell you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#376 Apr 07 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
T minus 29 hours I guess.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#377 Apr 07 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lol! You are being incredibly naive and cherry picking numbers now. The GOP proposed dropping their number from 61B to 36B *if* that 36B included certain guarantees (like the cuts to the NEA, NPR, and Planned Parenthood which have kinda been part of the whole topic as well).

I'm not interested in spoon-feeding your ignorance any longer so you go ahead just believing whatever your little radio friends tell you.


Which is funny coming from someone pretty much repeating liberal talking points verbatim.

I'll ask again: Find me a source in which a relevant figure from the GOP actually says that they are "offering" 36B with no riders or conditions to the Dems as a starting point for negotiations. Because I asked that before, and you responded with like 6 quotes of Dems saying that the GOP had offered this, but the only statement from the GOP being that there wasn't any deal struck yet. Funny how that seems to be missing, doesn't it? Perhaps that should make you suspect that the whole "But they offered 36B!!!" argument is a bit weak?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#378 Apr 07 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
T minus 29 hours I guess.

See, this is one advantage to having the Executive only being allowed to be culled from the ruling party's members in the lower and upper house. It cuts down on the confusion of the masses as to the blame allocation between the Presidential Executive, and the Houses of Congress and Senate.

If it was clearer where the blame lies for bad outcomes of policy making and enforcement, then it would be easier to vote in the better, more effective politicians.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#379 Apr 07 2011 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which is funny coming from someone pretty much repeating liberal talking points verbatim.

Uh-huh. Not interested in convincing someone who refuses to read.

I'll tell you what....
Quote:
The GOP proposed dropping their number from 61B to 36B *if* that 36B included certain guarantees
...this time, you find ME the cite. Run along, now!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#380 Apr 08 2011 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
David Frum wrote:
This budget proposal will end in tears, especially if there is a government shutdown tomorrow. The Democrats know that few Americans understand the difference between the 2011 Continuing Resolution and the 2012 budget. The Democrats will pound home the message that Republicans shut down the government so that they can cancel Medicare for everyone under 55, gut Medicaid, and cut taxes for the rich. Ryan is the hero of the party today. Six weeks from now, Republicans will feel about him the way the Confederacy felt about George Pickett six weeks after Gettysburg.

A point several people have made: You don't have to work hard to get footage and quotes from GOP lawmakers crowing "Shut it down!" and cheering the idea of a shutdown.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#381 Apr 08 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
So wait after doing some reading today this is all over .2% of the budget saved in cuts. Really. 800,000 jobs lost for .2% of the budget. What an effing joke.



Edited, Apr 8th 2011 3:48pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#382 Apr 08 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's technically true but a bit misleading. The bulk of the budget (66%) is mandatory entitlement spending for things such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The budget cuts being discussed are discretionary spending which is 33% of the budget. But, out of that 33%, something like 60% is military spending which isn't really being addressed. So you're in the neighborhood of 485 billion, of which a $36B cut is 7%, a $61B cut is 13% or a $100B cut is 20%. That's how much would come out of things like energy, transportation, public aid, education, housing, etc.

Then there's the obvious question of WHAT in that discretionary budget is getting cut and then addressing all the policy riders attached to the bill that save no money at all but merely direct money towards or away from things due to ideological desires. So it's not "Should we cut 0.2% of the budget?" but "Should we cut this program, that program and the other program (plus a hundred others) by 15% each and throw in these extra provisions about abortion, the environment and school vouchers?"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#383 Apr 08 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Ya I suppose I neglected to take into account the mandatory portion vs the non-mandatory portion. Funny to know however how much of the discretionary spending the military takes up, and how much the GOP was willing to cut from it! As far as all those tag on things, typical politicians* trying to sneak things under the Radar that they know won't likely garner enough support otherwise.


*I say typical politicians because I am quite sure just like in Canada all parties try to tack on extra things hoping that no one is looking, or that they can sneak them in. Not just a single party in particular.

Either way its funny to read the various media regarding this with one site blaming the dems for holding up the budget on purpose, others blaming the GOP for not wanting to work together to get a bipartisan budget in place.

To me its this stupid partisan split coming to a point again. American politics is so much more entertaining then Canadian politics, simply because of the blame game. When in the end every single one of those people on the hill are responsible for the success, and failure of everything that comes across the floor, and all of them are accountable.

Regardless of .2% or 7% either way its a @#%^ing joke that both these parties value keeping their names out of the mud, over the 800,000 people who are going to be without work in 8 hours. But what do they care, they still get a pay check each week.


Edited, Apr 8th 2011 4:40pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#384 Apr 08 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
<double>


Edited, Apr 8th 2011 4:39pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#385varusword75, Posted: Apr 08 2011 at 2:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#386 Apr 08 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
this time, you find ME the cite. Run along, now!


That's great! Just like a liberal to ask someone to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist.



Except for the dozen or so citations Joph already provided, you are absolutely correct!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#387 Apr 08 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uh-huh. Not interested in convincing someone who refuses to read.


What? I'm refusing to take wild lies from the left as literal fact?

Quote:
I'll tell you what....
Quote:
The GOP proposed dropping their number from 61B to 36B *if* that 36B included certain guarantees
...this time, you find ME the cite. Run along, now!


Lol! Ok. Fine! You win. The GOP never offered a deal with $36B in cuts.

Oh wait! That means you're wrong, doesn't it? Boy that was easy! :)


My assumption is that the GOP started negotiations at 61B. Why? Because that's what they passed in the House bill. If you want to argue that the GOP magically dropped that number to $36B with no strings or riders required by the Dems as their part of the deal, then you'll need to provide some evidence of this. So far, all you have is liberals claiming that this happened. I'm sorry, but that just seems like total BS to me.

You have to prove your claim that the GOP offered $36B free and clear Joph. So far, you haven't done this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#388 Apr 08 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
this time, you find ME the cite. Run along, now!


That's great! Just like a liberal to ask someone to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist.



Except for the dozen or so citations Joph already provided, you are absolutely correct!


Not one of which includes a member of the GOP team confirming what Joph is claiming. It's not enough to just quote a source, the source actually has to prove what you're saying is true. Let me know when that happens, cause I haven't seen it yet.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#389 Apr 08 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
My assumption is that the GOP started negotiations at 61B. Why?

...because that's what works best for your own personal hopes and feelings regardless of the truth. You've already admitted ignorance as the actual process and a lack in interest in finding anything out. But, yeah, keep saying "liberal" over and over. That'll probably convince some people much better than any actual information.

Obviously it worked on you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#390 Apr 08 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
this time, you find ME the cite. Run along, now!


That's great! Just like a liberal to ask someone to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist.

I don't think that response quite works out the way you think it does.
#391 Apr 08 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Regardless of .2% or 7% either way its a @#%^ing joke that both these parties value keeping their names out of the mud, over the 800,000 people who are going to be without work in 8 hours. But what do they care, they still get a pay check each week.


Those people will still get paid for the next pay cycle, so it's not like a few days of shutdown hurt anyone at all. When it goes past a week or so, that's when people will begin to feel it.

There's a larger dynamic to this. I see this fight as a litmus test for the larger budget fight that'll have to happen between now and next year. There's some legitimacy to the argument that if the Dems are unwilling to make what amount to relatively tiny cuts in areas that no one should be able to claim are "necessary" expenses, then how can we expect any serious effort from them when it comes to big cuts on bigger programs that have much larger ramifications? The number of people directly affected by federal funding for NPR, NEA, and Planned Parenthood are tiny. It's a principle thing. Are the Dems willing to allow cuts to anything they like, and how far are they willing to go to avoid cutting to those things?


Ultimately, that's what this is really about. The Dems are showing just how unwilling they are to give up any of their pet funding projects even in the face of crushing debt. The GOP is setting up the Dems by showing a pattern of behavior by them that runs counter to the need to cut spending which most Americans have accepted. All the rest of this talk about who wins or loses from a shutdown itself is almost secondary really. I suspect that most people don't realize this though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#392 Apr 08 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My assumption is that the GOP started negotiations at 61B. Why?

...because that's what works best for your own personal hopes and feelings regardless of the truth.


Huh? It's what they passed in their bill Joph. WTF? You're taking second hand claims over a bill that was voted on and passed in the House? You're kidding, right?

Quote:
You've already admitted ignorance as the actual process and a lack in interest in finding anything out.


I've done plenty of searches Joph. I can't find *any* information to support your claim that the GOP opened up negotiations with the Dems by offering $36B in cuts with no compromises or riders required by the Dems in return. Absolutely zero, zip, nada, nothing, supports your claim. It's not that I'm not interested in finding things out, but that there is nothing to find.


You're the one who is making this bizarre and unfounded claim, not me. How about you support it with something more than just "some liberals said this"? Can you do that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#393 Apr 08 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Huh? It's what they passed in their bill Joph. WTF?

Hehehe... product of the radio, you are.
Quote:
I've done plenty of searches Joph.

With all sincerity, I believe you are lying.
Quote:
I can't find *any* information to support your claim that the GOP opened up negotiations with the Dems by offering $36B in cuts with no compromises or riders required by the Dems in return.

You DID no doubt come across numerous references to the GOP starting those negotiations with $36B in cuts though, right? Let's just start with that. I've already posted links to some sources stating that the GOP opened the bipartisan negotiations with $36B so I'm sure you came across some others...

Right?

Look, I understand that you've been repeatedly humiliated in this thread. I understand that you need to try and salvage a little something to make yourself feel better. If shouting "liberal sources!!" over and over again is what it takes, then that's fine. I've presented a ton of information, you've presented... nothing except to shout "liberal!!" I'm done finding you more information because I know you're never, ever going to admit that you were wrong. You never have. And it's fine. I don't care if you admit it; I'm not posting it for your benefit.

Edited, Apr 8th 2011 4:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#394 Apr 08 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Scuttlebutt is that they're reaching an agreement of around $38B in cuts without the major policy riders. Ironically, by the standards of reality, this was a minor win for the GOP over the $36B they wanted (although they lose the riders). But, by Gbaji-Reality, this is a total bath for the GOP who started at $100B and lost 64% of the cuts they wanted plus the riders.

We'll have to see if the agreement sticks, of course. Reid is supposedly going to push a clean CR if things aren't going well for another couple days (week?) plus some military funding to secure pay for troops overseas even if the government does shutdown.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#395 Apr 08 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
I just got an email stating I'm paid up to the 8th, and what I'm owed for the 9th through the 15th (and I'm assuming beyond, if this fiasco continues further) will be paid out once its authorized by Congress.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#396 Apr 08 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Huh? It's what they passed in their bill Joph. WTF?

Hehehe... product of the radio, you are.


Huh? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything at all. That's what is in H.R. 1. Are you denying this? By definition, that's the starting negotiating position of the House.

Quote:
Quote:
I've done plenty of searches Joph.

With all sincerity, I believe you are lying.


And yet, you can't produce any evidence to support your claim, but insist that I must disprove yours and when I can't find evidence to support your claim either, I'm just not looking hard enough? You've kinda got this whole thing backwards, don't you?


Quote:
You DID no doubt come across numerous references to the GOP starting those negotiations with $36B in cuts though, right?


No. I didn't. Not one. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

I did happen across speaker Boehner's blog. I mean, if his argument was that they offered to drop down to $36B and then the Dems still refused to accept that, you'd think it'd be right there, front and center, right? I see no mention of any offer of $36B in cuts there, do you?

I have not found a single source with a quote or statement or even suggestion from a member of the House GOP stating that they were offering the Dems 36B in cuts with no conditions from the Dems in return. Not one. I suggest that the burden of proof lies on you here, not me.

Quote:
Let's just start with that. I've already posted links to some sources stating that the GOP opened the bipartisan negotiations with $36B so I'm sure you came across some others...


And I've already shown that none of those links actually say what you are claiming. Every single one that mentions the $36B figure comes out of a Dem mouth Joph. And none of them speak about riders.


Let me bottom line this for you. It's not about the dollar amount. It's about getting the Dems to budge on funding for their pet projects. That's why the GOP is willing to drop from 61B down to pretty much any number in the 30s. It's not about the specific number, but about testing the resolve of the Dems. Do they care more about funding for Planned Parenthood than they care about making sure active duty military get their paychecks? Do they care more about funding the NEA than they care about making sure that someone is writing IRS refund checks for American taxpayers? Do they care more about funding NPR than making sure that new Social Security applicants get their benefits?


The answer to all of those is apparently: Yes. The Dems care more about funding for those pet projects (some might even say "special interest" projects), than they care about funding vastly more important parts of the government. That's what this is about. That you don't see it is amazing. The GOP has positioned this so that it's so abundantly clear that no one can miss it. What did you think that short term resolution was about? They passed a bill in the House extending military pay for the full year, and everything else in the government for another week, and all the Dems had to do was to agree to a measly $12B in cuts, including those riders for those three projects. The point of that is to show that the Dems care more about those projects than they care about military families.


And while I'm sure most of those in the liberal bubble can't see this due to their own ideological blinders, the rest of the country is getting that message. It's as clear as possible and it's right in front of them. All the Dems had to do was give up funding for extremely non-important programs which most Americans think are a waste of money already, but they love them so much that they'll shut down the government in order to protect them.


That's the message of what's going on. It's really not about the dollar amount.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#397 Apr 08 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Scuttlebutt is that they're reaching an agreement of around $38B in cuts without the major policy riders. Ironically, by the standards of reality, this was a minor win for the GOP over the $36B they wanted (although they lose the riders). But, by Gbaji-Reality, this is a total bath for the GOP who started at $100B and lost 64% of the cuts they wanted plus the riders.


Scuttlebutt from more liberal sources reporting what they're offering? Lol! We'll see what happens, but honestly the GOP has already "won". The whole point is to show how hard the Dems will fight to keep their pet projects funded and how willing they are to hurt the American people in order to do so.


The GOP can easily claim the high road at this point (if they want), announce that they have let the Dems keep their funding for those programs for now, and will win out in the end by doing so. Or they can keep fighting and see just how far the Dems will take this. At the end of the day, the whole point is to make it clear in the American publics mind that the Dems care more about their pet projects than they care about them. Bringing the situation to the brink of shutdown works fine towards that goal.

They might let a shutdown go on for another week just to give them more media cycles to make this even more clear though. Hard to say.

Quote:
We'll have to see if the agreement sticks, of course. Reid is supposedly going to push a clean CR if things aren't going well for another couple days (week?) plus some military funding to secure pay for troops overseas even if the government does shutdown.


I'm sure he'll do everything he can to avoid shutdown and those funding cuts. But that's exactly the point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#398 Apr 08 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Scuttlebutt is that they're reaching an agreement of around $38B in cuts without the major policy riders. Ironically, by the standards of reality, this was a minor win for the GOP over the $36B they wanted (although they lose the riders). But, by Gbaji-Reality, this is a total bath for the GOP who started at $100B and lost 64% of the cuts they wanted plus the riders.

Fudging maths, how do they work?
#399 Apr 08 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. I didn't. Not one. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Well, that about says it all. Thanks :)
Quote:
They passed a bill in the House extending military pay for the full year, and everything else in the government for another week, and all the Dems had to do was to agree to a measly $12B in cuts, including those riders for those three projects. The point of that is to show that the Dems care more about those projects than they care about military families.

So what does it say that the GOP refused to allow a clean CR without those policy riders to come to the House floor this afternoon?

Edited, Apr 8th 2011 5:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#400 Apr 08 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
Fudging maths, how do they work?

Haha... by typing too fast, it would seem :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#401 Apr 08 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Hill wrote:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is urging congressional Republicans to cut a budget deal, warning that a government shutdown will hurt the party's chances to take back the White House next year.

In an interview Friday on Fox Business Network, the potential 2012 presidential hopeful said the GOP should avoid a shutdown at all costs "because the consequences of that are going to hurt the Republicans, not the Democrats."

"Nobody's more pro-life than me. Nobody," Huckabee said. "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 gonna go along with that. So win the deal you can win and live to fight another day."

Everyone knows the Democrats will be sooooo hurt by a shutdown!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help