Budget stalled still

[seeker_two]

I'm giving the GOP credit for getting as much as they did....esp. considering that they had the Senate, President, and all the MSM riding their backs....besides, 2012 is coming fast....then we'll see what they're made of....

[longeyes]

Boehner says we got the best deal we could get.  Wait a minute, didn't we hear those exact words from him around Christmas when the GOP blew another opportunity to draw the line?  I realize bigger battles loom ahead, but does anyone here believe the Dems are going to agree to dismantle The Great Society because this crop of Republicans tells them to?  Government is God to everyone in D.C., Republican and Democrat alike: Government u akbar.

[dm1333]

French G.,

I agree with a lot of what you said but if there was a gov't shutdown death benefits would not be paid for military members until the budget was passed.  The second thing that really bugged me is that we (the military) were getting wildly conflicting reports on whether or not scheduled leave could be taken.  What do you do about somebody who just had a death in the family?  Tell them they can't go home till the budget is passed?

[RocketMan]

The track we are on leads straight over the cliff into the abyss.  The Dems are at the controls of this train, throttle jammed full forward into the stops.  The Republicans are asking, "Would you slow down just a little bit, pretty please?"  Does anyone else see the problem here?

[longeyes]

Where is Denzel when we need him?

[RocketMan]

^^ True.

[French G.]

French G.,

I agree with a lot of what you said but if there was a gov't shutdown death benefits would not be paid for military members until the budget was passed.  The second thing that really bugged me is that we (the military) were getting wildly conflicting reports on whether or not scheduled leave could be taken.  What do you do about somebody who just had a death in the family?  Tell them they can't go home till the budget is passed?

The death benefit thing would be bad, but very isolated and probably any family it applied to would still get SGLI in that time, private insurance company.

Now, not the right answer, but if there was a death in my family and I wasn't getting paid. Well, assuming I wasn't deployed I'd explain that one when I came back and I'd have plenty to say at captain's mast. Probably beat the charge for leaving, but not the ones added on for how I said what I had to say.  Deployed, probably just have to suck it up, but then I remember the days where if your grandparent died you had to prove they raised you in order to get emergency leave. I go off on a wild tangent, I just hate the adulation of the military as a special class that we worship and pander too but then turn around and act like they're too dumb to make their own decisions.

[erictank]

The track we are on leads straight over the cliff into the abyss.  The Dems are at the controls of this train, throttle jammed full forward into the stops.  The Republicans are asking, "Would you slow down just a little bit, pretty please?"  Does anyone else see the problem here?

<raises hand>

Don't know what else I can do about it, but I see it and I'm trying to point it out to others.

At least my wife gets it (though she doesn't subscribe to my libertarian political notions) - at one point last week, she turned to me and said, "If we ran our house finances the way the government runs its finances, we'd have been in bankruptcy court years ago."

[AZRedhawk44]

This $38 billion is a joke.

This is supposed to be a Tea Party congress.

Government shut-down hurts pet projects of the Democrats a LOT more than Republicans.

I'm sorry that the military would feel adverse effects... but in my job I've been held to the fire and had to sacrifice family obligations too.  It's a very bitter pill to swallow, but that's what responsibility and dedication requires sometimes.

We CANNOT continue on this path.

Boehner was more focused on a political/media victory.  Not a functional one.

As such, this was a defeat.

$38 billion is absolutely meaningless... Unless Boehner is going to repeat this fight and this victory every week for the rest of the year.  Anyone want to lay odds on his intent in that regard?

Didn't think so.

[longeyes]

The media know that Boehner got rolled, which is why most media, even Fox, are portraying this as a Republican "win."  It was nothing of the sort unless one is utterly untethered from economic reality.  This is like saying you're going after the Vatican coffers and ending up robbing the collection plate.  We'll see how The Boehner Boys do with the debt ceiling.  If they cave after getting a few throw-aways, as I frankly expect, we can expect the following year to be about the formation of a third political party.

[birdman]

I think the overall result is positive.  
1. It is a cut on the "current year budget"...which should have been enacted before the nov. Elections anyway, so that's a retroactive nicety
2. I don't discount the "political/media" win of this, it will help for the next two big things coming up
3. I read the deal also forces an audit of the obamacare implementation AND waivers AND forces the senate to vote on the house repeal law...which, while it will fail, will put the supporters on record which will help 2012
4. This puts the senate and pres. on record voting for cuts (of any kind), AND the GOP looking good from this will enable better negotiation on the upcoming set increase (may) and 2012 budget, which are the big swingers...
5. Given that the GOP and tea party combined only control half of the legislature, and do not have veto proof numbers, a compromise WAS required, better to set the trend small and work up to the big votes (debt ceiling and 2012)...the "we only control one half of one third of the govt" factor
6. I was disappointed the EPA rider couldn't make it
7. Overall, this, and the debt ceiling/2012 votes are going to be a lot of theater, but again, we are limited in what can be "forced" through--2012 elections are going to be key--enough democrat senators are up for election to easily swing the senate, and then we can start making major changes.  So I will take what j can get for the next year.

[makattak]

This deal sucks.

However, the "Tea party Congress" is really just the "Tea Party House". So, "we" control one-half of one third of the government.

We're going to get a sucky deal under those conditions. I'm not happy with it, I prefer we'd have shut the place down, but you can only expect so much from the Stupid Party.

[longeyes]

We're half of one third of the government, but we're also half of the country.  The government is not the country.  That it behaves as if it is under Obama is exactly the problem.

[Gowen]

We are still going to have to deal with one of the two major parties.  The Libertarians aren't going to elect a President and the best the Tea party can hope to do is push forward Republican with those ideals.

[longeyes]

We can take back the Senate in 2012.  If we do that we can stop the insanity even if Mr Obama is re-elected.  If we can't defeat Obama we can isolate him.

[makattak]

We can take back the Senate in 2012.  If we do that we can stop the insanity even if Mr Obama is re-elected.  If we can't defeat Obama we can isolate him.

I don't think we can. Defeating Obama is make or break for this country. If he is in office for four more years without the fear of reelection and knowing the Republicans will NEVER impeach him, the administrative and exectuive havoc he would wreak (not to mention the Supreme Court Justices he would likely be replacing) would doom our country.

[Nick1911]

I don't think we can. Defeating Obama is make or break for this country. If he is in office for four more years without the fear of reelection and knowing the Republicans will NEVER impeach him, the administrative and exectuive havoc he would wreak (not to mention the Supreme Court Justices he would likely be replacing) would doom our country.

Face it, we're already doomed.  Just roll with it. 

[longeyes]

Yeah, but the thing is...we won't be able to "roll with it."  Not standing on our two legs.  We're not talking about weathering a few bad years, we're talking about dissenters being hunted down and silenced, we're talking about people emigrating in droves, about de facto and overt confiscation of wealth, disarmanent, and no doubt a whole lot of social unrest and international upheaval.  We're talking about websites like this one ceasing to exist.  Roll with it?  No f'g way.

[longeyes]

If we win back the Senate (and keep the House), Obama, even sitting in the White House, will be de-fanged.  Of course this presumes the Republicans are not just RINOs.

We have a better shot at taking the Senate, in my view, than beating Obama.  Obama has the media and demographics behind him; he is benefiting from the national mental disease that created this "historical" Presidency.

No, the whole thing is going to go back to the States; that is where our power resides.

[Nick1911]

Yeah, but the thing is...we won't be able to "roll with it."  Not standing on our two legs.  We're not talking about weathering a few bad years, we're talking about dissenters being hunted down and silenced, we're talking about people emigrating in droves, about de facto and overt confiscation of wealth, disarmanent, and no doubt a whole lot of social unrest and international upheaval.  We're talking about websites like this one ceasing to exist.  Roll with it?  No f'g way.

I'll assume you have a better option?  Because all I see from you vague platitudes and no plan of action.

Enlighten us.

[Nick1911]

If we win back the Senate (and keep the House), Obama, even sitting in the White House, will be de-fanged.  Of course this presumes the Republicans are not just RINOs.

We have a better shot at taking the Senate, in my view, than beating Obama.  Obama has the media and demographics behind him; he is benefiting from the national mental disease that created this "historical" Presidency.

No, the whole thing is going to go back to the States; that is where our power resides.

Yet again, this massive vague high level thing.

Axiom: There is nothing that you or I could possibly do that would change how this will play out. Whether "we win back the Senate" or not is outside our control.  You and I, the entirety of this forum make up a statistically insignificant portion of "we".

So what can we (You and I, discreet people) do to change the course of a national election?

I've pondered that question a lot.  The only logical conclusion is that what will happen, will happen.  We have no control over it, and therefore it would serve no purpose to worry about it.  Thus, come to peace with it, roll with it.  I choose to spend my energy on things I can control.  Doing otherwise makes no sense.

[longeyes]

Hey, Nick, I don't think you really know the meaning of platitude, so I won't bother dealing with that.  I learned the meaning of it when I was about eight.  I'm just responding to your craven fatalism.  Maybe your 1911 will help, who knows, assuming you have the spirit to use it.  Yeah, I do have a plan of action: it's to stay here and work to save this country as best I can and save the people I care about.  

You accuse me of high-level vagueness, whatever that means, when I talk about the realistic prospect of taking back the Senate in 2012.  Then you deliver wisdom: what's going to happen will happen.  Wow, I'm impressed.  Enjoy your water-pipe.

[Nick1911]

longeyes;

I came off abrasive, probably rudely.  I apologize.  Let me try this again:

I just hear the same thing, over and over, how "we need to take back xxx"  or "we need to vote xxx out".

And yet, no one has ever been able to verbalize exactly how individuals such as you and I are suppose to accomplish that.

Yea, I agree with you in that if the Dem's lose control of the Senate, Obama will not have a lot of power, classic political gridlock.  I agree that this would be a good thing.

Thing is - what am I suppose to do to make that happen?  Because ticking a box beside the candidate I want to win has been clearly ineffective.  Discussing it with liberals in person is more ineffective - it's like trying to convince someone that their religion is wrong.  Just doesn't happen.

[makattak]

longeyes;

I came off abrasive, probably rudely.  I apologize.  Let me try this again:

I just hear the same thing, over and over, how "we need to take back xxx"  or "we need to vote xxx out".

And yet, no one has ever been able to verbalize exactly how individuals such as you and I are suppose to accomplish that.

Yea, I agree with you in that if the Dem's lose control of the Senate, Obama will not have a lot of power, classic political gridlock.  I agree that this would be a good thing.

Thing is - what am I suppose to do to make that happen?  Because ticking a box beside the candidate I want to win has been clearly ineffective.  Discussing it with liberals in person is more ineffective - it's like trying to convince someone that their religion is wrong.  Just doesn't happen.

Volunteer for and donate (as possible) to effective conservative (or libertarian if that's your persuasion) organizations. You're right that one person makes very little difference. Working with others can and does.

I'm purposely vague about which organizations as it is up to you to decide what "effective" means.

[Nick1911]

Volunteer for and donate (as possible) to effective conservative (or libertarian if that's your persuasion) organizations. You're right that one person makes very little difference. Working with others can and does.

I'm purposely vague about which organizations as it is up to you to decide what "effective" means.

I see.

Has this been effective in influencing the direction of the country in your experience?