Military won't be paid after 7OCT if shutdown continues past that date

[jonny5]

That would be like the Dems in the house passing a bill to raise taxes on the rich and then accusing the Republicans of refusing to compromise. Anyway, military personel will likely still get paid regardless of the shut down, so it was a deceitful bill...as are most Republican bills.

I agree, blaming one party or the other is pointless. Theyre both responsible. Now if only people would stop doing it.

However, I was talking about the budget passed in April.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

"...Imagine a situation in which a Democratic Speaker said to a Republican President, I’m not going to increase the debt ceiling unless you increase corporate taxes by 20 percent. And if you don’t do it, we’ll default on the debt and cause a worldwide financial crisis. Even though that Democratic Speaker didn’t have the votes to force through that particular piece of legislation, they would simply say, we will blow the whole thing up unless you do what I want....."


If Democrats cave and compromise then whats to stop Republicans from doing it again on other programs such as social security, medicare, unemployment, and any other program they don't like and can't get repealed by constitutional means?

That's a hell of a straw man you've created, I am impressed.

 

[LowDown]

Simple to understand, many civilian DOD employees will immediately cease coming into work if the government fails to pass a bill to fund itself. In the case of service members, all service members will continue to work however if a shutdown occurs and if it continues after 7OCT than the DOD will not be able to make payroll by 14OCT. This would mean services members would receive an "IOU" that would be retroactively paid once funds become available. Also lack of funds may prevent US troops from being redeployed back to the states from Afghanistan on the completion of their tour. In addition payments to veterans for disabilities as well as other payments in the GI Bill would cease, along with many civilian staff that would at the Department of VA. Alright so this **** is real, I've personally been involved in helping Soldiers fill out AER loan requests, which is a service to Soldiers who need extra help on pay, in preparation for a possible delay in their paychecks.

Hagel calls government shutdown threat 'shortsighted' - U.S. - Stripes

VA: Most employees to stay on, but shutdown would halt some services - Veterans - Stripes

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.243818.1380313602!/menu/standard/file/Field_Guide_20130927.pdf

Ok I got that Republicans don't like Obamacare, but holding the military and the rest of the government hostage over it is no way to govern. You cannot ask the other party to eat a bowl of **** and then claim they aren't governing when they refuse to eat, likewise Dems in the Senate should not simply refund Obamacare and make no other changes to the House bill and thus basically ask Republicans to eat their own bowl of ****. Both the Senate and the House are elected representatives and both should have input on a government funding bill, but asking for the impossible is no way to govern, there are things which can be compromised on and instead of political grandstanding like Ted Cruz they should be working on a compromise plan both parties can agree upon.

Obama had better stop threatening vetos, then, and sign whatever the Congress passes.

 

[jonny5]

H.R.2216 - military funding for 2014 passed in the house, ignored in the Senate
HR 2217 - Homeland Secutiry funding, ignored in the Senate
HR 1960 - Defense Dept funding for 2014, passed in house, ignored in the Senate

What else are they supposed to do?

 

[Fenton]

Simple to understand, many civilian DOD
employees will immediately cease coming into work if the government fails to pass a bill to fund itself. In the case of service members, all service members will continue to work however if a shutdown occurs and if it continues after 7OCT than the DOD will not be able to make payroll by 14OCT. This would mean services members would receive an "IOU" that would be retroactively paid once funds become available. Also lack of funds may prevent US troops from being redeployed back to the states from Afghanistan on the completion of their tour. In addition payments to veterans for disabilities as well as other payments in the GI Bill would cease, along with many civilian staff that would at the Department of VA. Alright so this **** is real, I've personally been involved in helping Soldiers fill out AER loan requests, which is a service to Soldiers who need extra help on pay, in preparation for a possible delay in their paychecks.

Hagel calls government shutdown threat 'shortsighted' - U.S. - Stripes

VA: Most employees to stay on, but shutdown would halt some services - Veterans - Stripes

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.243818.1380313602!/menu/standard/file/Field_Guide_20130927.pdf

Ok I got that Republicans don't like Obamacare, but holding the military and the rest of the government hostage over it is no way to govern. You cannot ask the other party to eat a bowl of **** and then claim they aren't governing when they refuse to eat, likewise Dems in the Senate should not simply refund Obamacare and make no other changes to the House bill and thus basically ask Republicans to eat their own bowl of ****. Both the Senate and the House are elected representatives and both should have input on a government funding bill, but asking for the impossible is no way to govern, there are things which can be compromised on and instead of political grandstanding like Ted Cruz they should be working on a compromise plan both parties can agree upon.

Ridiculous.

The Liberals have held the entire American economy hostage for nearly 5 years.

Shut it down Republicans, its time to stand up to the corruption and incompetence that is the modern day Democrat party.

 

[Wiseone]

All I want is for the Dems and Republicans to come up with a funding bill that includes input from both parties, the House has a majority of Republicans and they by all right through being elected deserve to have input on any spending bill. But to focus on one single issue and ignore all other room for compromise is political grandstanding now governance, you cannot tell me that given the opportunity to implement legislation on literally every single issue important to Republicans is less important than the single issue of Obamacare.

The Republicans made their stance clear, now its time to compromise, and likewise the Dems have made their stance clear and its time for them to compromise as well.

I'm angry at the Republicans for refusing to budge and I'd be just as angry at the Dems for doing the same, but when you have Republicans filibustering their own bills to drag out the time remaining to force a government shut down there's clearly no intent to actually accomplish anything. Why not pass a House bill that gives a tax break while funding the government, cuts spending to a program the Republicans do not like, change the tax code, SOMETHING, ANYTHING that the Dems can swallow while having their own input.

This "no-compromise" policy simply does not work, what if both parties acted like this? Literally nothing would be passed if every issue was a no-compromise situation, is that the kind of government we want? One that does not function at all? NOTHING is accomplished by shutting down the government, nothing is accomplished by default on US sovereign debt if it comes to that later on. The Republicans are doing nothing less than threatening to damage the American economy over a political issue.

Let me ask the supporters of the Republicans here, if this tactic works and Obamacare is defunded or delayed would you say that should be the end of this kind of hostage taking? Or should they pick another issue and give a similar threat come debt ceiling time? Is this really how you want the government to function, no compromise?

 

[jonny5]

All I want is for the Dems and Republicans to come up with a funding bill that includes input from both parties, the House has a majority of Republicans and they by all right through being elected deserve to have input on any spending bill. But to focus on one single issue and ignore all other room for compromise is political grandstanding now governance, you cannot tell me that given the opportunity to implement legislation on literally every single issue important to Republicans is less important than the single issue of Obamacare.

The Republicans made their stance clear, now its time to compromise, and likewise the Dems have made their stance clear and its time for them to compromise as well.

I'm angry at the Republicans for refusing to budge and I'd be just as angry at the Dems for doing the same, but when you have Republicans filibustering their own bills to drag out the time remaining to force a government shut down there's clearly no intent to actually accomplish anything. Why not pass a House bill that gives a tax break while funding the government, cuts spending to a program the Republicans do not like, change the tax code, SOMETHING, ANYTHING that the Dems can swallow while having their own input.

This "no-compromise" policy simply does not work, what if both parties acted like this? Literally nothing would be passed if every issue was a no-compromise situation, is that the kind of government we want? One that does not function at all? NOTHING is accomplished by shutting down the government, nothing is accomplished by default on US sovereign debt if it comes to that later on. The Republicans are doing nothing less than threatening to damage the American economy over a political issue.

Let me ask the supporters of the Republicans here, if this tactic works and Obamacare is defunded or delayed would you say that should be the end of this kind of hostage taking? Or should they pick another issue and give a similar threat come debt ceiling time? Is this really how you want the government to function, no compromise?

They tried all that for the last 3 years. Every year the House passes a budget, and every year the Senate ignores it. Then nothing happens till the CR runs out and forces them to pass a new CR. The media blames Republicans. Obama blames Republicans. Senate blames Republicans. Again, what else is the House supposed to do but pass bills, when the Senate wont even debate, amend, pass, conference like theyre supposed to?

The current issue is that Republicans want to pass a CR and repeal Obamacare. Democrats want to pass a CR and keep Obamacare. Wheres the compromise?

 

[Wiseone]

They tried all that for the last 3 years. Every year the House passes a budget, and every year the Senate ignores it. Then nothing happens till the CR runs out and forces them to pass a new CR. The media blames Republicans. Obama blames Republicans. Senate blames Republicans. Again, what else is the House supposed to do but pass bills, when the Senate wont even debate, amend, pass, conference like theyre supposed to?

The current issue is that Republicans want to pass a CR and repeal Obamacare. Democrats want to pass a CR and keep Obamacare. Wheres the compromise?

Like I said, since both parties can't budge on Obamacare and the Republicans don't have the votes to overturn it themselves there are literally thousands of other issues which can be debated and compromised over. I expect people to have a reasonable understanding of what they are capable of accomplishing and the Republicans don't have it here, or more likely they do know that it'll never be overturned but folks like Ted Cruz want to grandstand so he can call everyone else "weak" come 2016 and other likeminded Reps can get re-elected for accomplishing nothing.

That's the problem when accomplishing something is less important than ideological purity

 

[VanceMack]

BO himself is trying to delay parts of Obamacare. Why? Because he knows it is a piece of **** legislation and will have a dire impact on the economy, jobs, and ultimately, the 2014 election. Obamacare Employer Mandate Delay Will Cut Covered Americans By 500,000: CBO Report

The administration is trying to delay implementation. Labor unions that supported the party are bailing on inclusion. A majority of dem supporters impacted are seeking exemptions. As for the individual mandate...people STILL dont know how it will impact them, only that it WILL impact them. Some have already felt the sting of higher premiums. Its OK...wait til those that do support the individual man date realize they dont qualify for the subsidies and HAVE to pay for insurance. Wait til those that do qualify for the subsidies see the automatic deductions in their tax returns. Liberals on THIS site have talked about how bad it is and how it isnt anything like what they wanted. Everyone wants it...but nobody wants to get stuck with it. How is that NOT something that should be at least delayed and most appropriately...scrapped altogether?

Best thing the GOP should have done was tied TOTAL implementation to the budget bill...not a defunding. People that supported it...well...they ought to have to live with it for a while.

 

[tech30528]

The real hostages here are the American people. We overwhelmingly don't want Obamacare. Yes, the house and the senate passed it under extreme pressure and without reading it. THAT was the biggest part of the failure. It never should have happened. Today is about correcting it. Government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. When they shut it down we need to nail the doors shut and fire them all for walking away from their duties. In the mean time all these scare tactics are deplorable. They all need to be fired, and when they run for their jobs again they need to be with term limits.

 

[OscarB63]

The Affordable Care Act was enacted by Congress, signed by the President, approved by the Supreme Court and validated by an election. It has passed every test. Anyone who supports Republican attempts to obstruct it is an enemy of the American People. He is a traitor and should suffer the fate of all traitors.

so was slavery.......

 

[VanceMack]

The Affordable Care Act was enacted by Congress, signed by the President, approved by the Supreme Court and validated by an election. It has passed every test. Anyone who supports Republican attempts to obstruct it is an enemy of the American People. He is a traitor and should suffer the fate of all traitors.

A majority party passed legislation along party lines and you wet yourself with glee. The other party then gets elected into control of that body and acts along party lines and you wet yourself again...but for entirely different reasons. Its good when its what you want...but when its not what you want...its just not FAIR.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

The Republicans had every opportunity to contribute to PPACA but chose instead to obstruct and obfuscate.

Weren't republicans locked out of the committee meetings for the bill? For some reason I remember them being locked out of something regarding the ACA.

 

[jonny5]

Like I said, since both parties can't budge on Obamacare and the Republicans don't have the votes to overturn it themselves there are literally thousands of other issues which can be debated and compromised over. I expect people to have a reasonable understanding of what they are capable of accomplishing and the Republicans don't have it here, or more likely they do know that it'll never be overturned but folks like Ted Cruz want to grandstand so he can call everyone else "weak" come 2016 and other likeminded Reps can get re-elected for accomplishing nothing.

That's the problem when accomplishing something is less important than ideological purity

They were elected to represent the will of the people in their district, not to 'get something accomplished'. The people voted for a stalemate, thats what they get. I dont see the problem.

 

[PirateMk1]

So, Kevin McCarthy is the majority whip, eh? He was uncontested in the last two elections so you probably won't be voting for a democrat anytime soon in your gerry mandered district of rural yahoos and the super wealthy.

Anyway, the AFA was based on the conservative idea of personal responsibility and incorporating the private insurance industry with Mitt Romney's health plan as a blue print. It had the blessing of Republicans until Obama won the election. So no, I don't wonder why Republicans fought it tooth and nail. No doubt if McCain or Romney had won we'd be calling it McCain-Care or Romney-care.


'...Given the history of bipartisan support for an individual mandate and regulated insurance markets with subsidies as well as their perceived success in Massachusetts, by 2008 Democrats were considering using this approach as the basis for comprehensive, national healthcare reform. Experts have pointed out that the legislation that eventually emerged from Congress in 2009 and 2010 bears many similarities to the 2007 bill..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patien...Care_Act#Healthcare_debate.2C_2008.E2.80.9310



Btw, Obamacare reduces the deficit by $132 billion over a ten year period and insures 95% of the people as compared to Beohner's Republican Party of No Plan....

Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - Kaiser Health News

What part of no do you not understand?

 

[solletica]

The Affordable Care Act was enacted by Congress, signed by the President, approved by the Supreme Court and validated by an election. It has passed every test. Anyone who supports Republican attempts to obstruct it is an enemy of the American People. He is a traitor and should suffer the fate of all traitors.

Wrong. A traitor is someone who betrays his country. Betraying one's govt. is perfectly OK.

 

[DVSentinel]

And for those who don't think what the Republicans are doing is a hostage situation let me put it to you this way, what would you call it if the situation was reversed and there was a Republican President with a Republican Senate and a Dem House. The Dem House passes a bill which funds the government but also brings back the Clinton era Assault Weapons Ban, the Republican House naturally refuses to pass the bill, who would you blame for a government shut down in this situation and would you not call the Dem's strategy a "hostage situation."

Anyone with any sense of self-respect and who tries to avoid double standards would call this kind of tactic, whether done by Reps or Dems, wrong.

Which ever side is making unreasonable requests. Unreasonable to me is any program/etc which is not an essential part of the government. So, there is no double standard. In both cases, the Dems are the ones being unreasonable by demanding funding or activation of unnecessary government programs/law.

 

[Wiseone]

They were elected to represent the will of the people in their district, not to 'get something accomplished'. The people voted for a stalemate, thats what they get. I dont see the problem.

Representatives are elected to represent, no doubt there, but they also have a responsibility to take the best interests of their representatives and the American people as a whole into consideration. Simply going off what their voters would want, like a poll for example, wouldn't be an effective way to govern. Congress deals with complex issues and a wide variety of topics, Congressmen must employ staffers not only to run things like the campaign and the office but also to be experts on issues and topics to provide that in the form of analysis so the Congressman can make an informed decision. No one single person, whether a voter or a Congressman themselves, is an expert on every issue nor is there enough time in a day to keep up with every development on every single issue. Again that's what staffers are for.

We don't have a direct democracy not only because it would impractical to have national elections on every issue but also because individual people cannot devote themselves to the knowing every issue well enough to vote intelligently on it. Congressman, through proper use of their staffers, can and should vote based on that information.

Not to be rude but if someone voted for a Congressman because they wanted a government shut down they should be ignored, they clearly don't know enough about economics or government otherwise they wouldn't be advocating that position.

 

[Wiseone]

Which ever side is making unreasonable requests. Unreasonable to me is any program/etc which is not an essential part of the government. So, there is no double standard. In both cases, the Dems are the ones being unreasonable by demanding funding or activation of unnecessary government programs/law.

That's a double standard, you say that its OK for one group to do something but not OK for the other one to do the exact same thing. What Dems used this tactic to try to pass a tax increase, perfectly Constitutional, would you be OK with it then?

Hostage taking is not governance, period.

 

[Visbek]

if this tactic works and Obamacare is defunded or delayed would you say that should be the end of this kind of hostage taking?

They might say it, but they'd be lying or wrong.

The Republicans first used the shutdown in the Clinton era, and have used it numerous times during the Obama administration. Along similar lines, both sides use filibusters to delay or stop legislation and/or appointments. As long as a tactic is available, someone will use it.

Is this really how you want the government to function, no compromise?

The right wing obviously no longer tolerates compromises. Any Republican who whispers a word of compromise, or doesn't toe the Tea Party line, will face a stiff primary challenge from a more conservative challenger.

 

[DVSentinel]

"...Imagine a situation in which a Democratic Speaker said to a Republican President, I’m not going to increase the debt ceiling unless you increase corporate taxes by 20 percent. And if you don’t do it, we’ll default on the debt and cause a worldwide financial crisis. Even though that Democratic Speaker didn’t have the votes to force through that particular piece of legislation, they would simply say, we will blow the whole thing up unless you do what I want....."


If Democrats cave and compromise then whats to stop Republicans from doing it again on other programs such as social security, medicare, unemployment, and any other program they don't like and can't get repealed by constitutional means?

Sounds like a good plan to me. What makes their actions unconstitutional?

Social Security and Medicare need massive overhauls, preferably ones that eventually takes them out of government hands. Unemployment should stay an insurance program as it is in some states and the Fed should never have gotten into funding it. Welfare, Hud, EPA, BATF, medicaid, and many other programs should never have been adopted into their current form and need to be done away with or restructured anyways. All government programs need a serious looking at that removes and reduces redundancy, extraneous management and other inefficiencies as well as being evaluated as to whether the government should be doing it at all.

 

[Visbek]

Nothing. Those of us overseas (like myself) will be fine.

Only if you don't have bills to pay, and/or don't mind relying on savings for a few weeks while the mess gets sorted out.

And there's a lot of soldiers stateside, no?

 

[Somerville]

I hope the Democrats and Republicans DONT negotiate. I want to see the government shut down. In fact I want a long drawn out stalemate. I want to see backbone, intestinal fortitude, and resolve, out of the wimps that call themselves republicans.

So you want America to enter another recession, perhaps a depression worst than the Great Depression, simply because you think an act of Congress that is completely legal and will benefit tens of millions of American is "unconstitutional"

Ignorance of the consequences of the action you are calling for should disenfranchise you from ever voting in this country

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Only if you don't have bills to pay, and/or don't mind relying on savings for a few weeks while the mess gets sorted out.

And there's a lot of soldiers stateside, no?

You like putting 'no' at the end of a statement to make it a question, no? If this president would actually lead, he would have a plan in place to prioritize the spending that is essential to the primary purpose of his office - taking care of our servicemen and women. Contingency planning and whatnot without scaring those he should be serving.

 

[jonny5]

Representatives are elected to represent, no doubt there, but they also have a responsibility to take the best interests of their representatives and the American people as a whole into consideration. Simply going off what their voters would want, like a poll for example, wouldn't be an effective way to govern. Congress deals with complex issues and a wide variety of topics, Congressmen must employ staffers not only to run things like the campaign and the office but also to be experts on issues and topics to provide that in the form of analysis so the Congressman can make an informed decision. No one single person, whether a voter or a Congressman themselves, is an expert on every issue nor is there enough time in a day to keep up with every development on every single issue. Again that's what staffers are for.

We don't have a direct democracy not only because it would impractical to have national elections on every issue but also because individual people cannot devote themselves to the knowing every issue well enough to vote intelligently on it. Congressman, through proper use of their staffers, can and should vote based on that information.

Not to be rude but if someone voted for a Congressman because they wanted a government shut down they should be ignored, they clearly don't know enough about economics or government otherwise they wouldn't be advocating that position.

Well its good thing for them we have representative decision making and not dictatorship then.