Government Shutdown Prevention Act: lolwut?

[IBCoupe]

Sorry, but that really pissed me off.

Look, it's one thing to cherry pick a sliver of one of my posts, take it out of context and argue it at a later date or on a new page, where I'm less likely to remember exactly what I wrote. It's another thing entirely to do it right next to the whole post.

Come on! It's right there! Right above your reply, Z. That was just lazy. Anybody with half a brain would see you took that way out of context, separating out half of the damned thought.

Here, I'll help:

And even if you don't institute those easy fixes

[stebo0728]

But we're too big to fail ....

[bigbadberry3]

Does Congress get pad when the gov shuts down?

[IBCoupe]

I don't know... I'll look into it. What I do know is that when the government shuts down, the Courts shut down, the Executive shuts down except for the most key personnel, and Congress still has the power to legislate. They might get paid for it; don't know for sure.

Google search seems to suggest that typically they would, but people keep proposing bills to make sure that they don't, in each House - the one in the OP being one of them. But they haven't gotten together on that, so, at this point, Congress is still getting paid.

[szh]

Sorry, but that really pissed me off.

Look, it's one thing to cherry pick a sliver of one of my posts, take it out of context and argue it at a later date or on a new page, where I'm less likely to remember exactly what I wrote. It's another thing entirely to do it right next to the whole post.

Come on! It's right there! Right above your reply, Z. That was just lazy. Anybody with half a brain would see you took that way out of context, separating out half of the damned thought.

Here, I'll help:

And even if you don't institute those easy fixes

And you entirely missed my point too. I read what you had to say - the problem is that every "fix" (easy or otherwise) to Social Security is deemed not necessary today because the problem with Social Security is too far away to matter. And I find too many people casually brushing it off for that reason.

It is that short-sighted attitude that pisses ME off totally.

BTW, does my quoting your entire post this time work better to explain my position any differently? The next time you feel pissed off, take a deep breath and remember that others are pissed off too - at what may be the opposite position to your beliefs.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Yes, it does help, Z. But here's the thing: nobody's arguing what you're arguing against. Or, if you like, nobody here is arguing that, especially me, the guy you quoted and argued against.

Maybe you were just venting, but it sure as hell looked like a strawman. I'm actually advocating for the fixes, today.

[szh]

Yeah, I saw your words, but I will still react negatively to it, because I don't think we should inure ourselves in that manner. It is not a Fait Accompli. So, consider my reaction to be due to my belief that "if someone repeats a lie often enough, it becomes truth" is an blinders-on foolhardy way to live.

Which is why I DETEST anybody saying (or even hinting, or justifying with caveats, etc.) that we don't have to do anything with Social Security today, because it is not going to be a problem for a generation or two.

I do not want to leave that legacy to my (only) 12 year old son - he will have enough difficulties to deal with than having to deal with a "social welfare above all", for the "good of the poor", "financially broke" government.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Okay, but I'm gonna b**** at you the next time you selectively edit my comments in order to portray the opposite of what I was saying, too.

Fair warning.

[szh]

Okay, but I'm gonna b**** at you the next time you selectively edit my comments in order to portray the opposite of what I was saying, too.

Fair warning.

Please look in a mirror too.

Z

[heliochrome85]

when you guys are done playing your game of poke and tickle,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... utdown.php

[IBCoupe]

Republicans want more spending cuts in exchange for getting rid of those riders. They see that as a concession. Democrats maintain that, No, if you put those things in, it probably won't pass the Senate, and if it does, it'll meet a Presidential veto. So they say: you're only giving up things you never would have gotten, anyways. That's not a concession.

Republicans: "We want a car. We won, and we want a car."
Democrats: "Here's a Kia."
Republicans: "No, no, we want a real car. Koeniggsegg."
Democrats: "That's an unrealistic demand."
Republicans: "Well, okay. We'll take a Ferrari."
Democrats: "We'll go to Honda, but that's it."
Republicans: "Hey now, we went from Koeniggsegg to Ferrari. You owe us more than that."
Democrats: "You went from wildly ridiculous to moderately ridiculous. No."

[stebo0728]

What about this one week deal to keep things going, that Obama says he'll just veto, thats not involving the cuts or riders, so whats the deal with it?

[IBCoupe]

Biden got a deal for a one week extension. No riders, no cuts, and defense is off the table for the rest of the year. Obama has already said no more extensions (as have others), so he said no again. I don't know if it was the extension he objected to or the provisions within it, or if he's just keeping a promise to minimize damage to him.

After all, he can sit back, and the Senate, too, and simply say, "Boehner, do your damned job. You wanted the House of Representatives and you got it."

[stebo0728]

Republicans: "We want a car. We won, and we want a car."
Democrats: "Here's a Kia."
Republicans: "No, no, we want a real car. Koeniggsegg."
Democrats: "That's an unrealistic demand."
Republicans: "Well, okay. We'll take a Ferrari."
Democrats: "We'll go to Honda, but that's it."
Republicans: "Hey now, we went from Koeniggsegg to Ferrari. You owe us more than that."
Democrats: "You went from wildly ridiculous to moderately ridiculous. No."

Republicans: "Ok, we're in charge now. We need to drive a less expensive car."
Democrats: "By we like our Jaguar!"
Republicans: "No, no, we can get around town with something much cheaper, how about a Ford Taurus."
Democrats: "That's an unrealistic demand."
Republicans: "Well, okay. How about a Chevy Impala."
Democrats: "We'll go to M Class, but no less!"
Republicans: "Hey now, we went from Jaguar to M Class. We can do better than that."
Democrats: "You went from wildly ridiculous to moderately ridiculous. No."

[srellim234]

Republicans: "We want a car. We won, and we want a car."
Democrats: "Here's a Kia."
Republicans: "No, no, we want a real car. Koeniggsegg."
Democrats: "That's an unrealistic demand."
Republicans: "Well, okay. We'll take a Ferrari."
Democrats: "We'll go to Honda, but that's it."
Republicans: "Hey now, we went from Koeniggsegg to Ferrari. You owe us more than that."
Democrats: "You went from wildly ridiculous to moderately ridiculous. No."

Republicans: "Ok, we're in charge now. We need to drive a less expensive car."
Democrats: "By we like our Jaguar!"
Republicans: "No, no, we can get around town with something much cheaper, how about a Ford Taurus."
Democrats: "That's an unrealistic demand."
Republicans: "Well, okay. How about a Chevy Impala."
Democrats: "We'll go to M Class, but no less!"
Republicans: "Hey now, we went from Jaguar to M Class. We can do better than that."
Democrats: "You went from wildly ridiculous to moderately ridiculous. No."

Republicans: "OK, we're in charge now. We need to drive a less expensive car."
Democrats: But we like our Jaguars."
Republicans: We like our Ferraris, too. Maybe we can grandstand and blame you."
Democrats: Works for us. We'll blame you as well and and make those people out there in the real world suffer. Maybe we can even convince them to be happy they have a used AMC Gremlin in the driveway. You get to keep driving your Ferraris and we get to keep driving our Jaguars. We'll just promise them that we'll keep working on the problem and deal with it when these cars wear out. By then we should be able to fool them again with more Congressional committees to 'study' it."
Republicans: "O.K. Let's go out this afternoon and announce we've reached a bipartisan agreement."

[stebo0728]

srellim, I think you hit it best ...

[heliochrome85]

http://www.slate.com/id/2290595/pagenum/all/#p2

[heliochrome85]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... APEQQP.DTL

[szh]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... APEQQP.DTL

I just love the bias in the title of the article!

"Boehner to Be Paid as Soldiers Wait If Government Closes"

Of course, the fact that so will Harry Reid and Barack Obama is buried in the text instead ... in the second paragraph ...

Sigh ...

Z

[IBCoupe]

Yeah, but it's Boehner's job to get them paid.

We were all paying attention when they read the Constitution aloud at the start of the term, right? I mean, what else would be the point if doing so. It's not like it was a meaningless gesture or anything.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, I think we were talking about similar but different CR's. I think the proposal Biden brought to the President was the same except for one difference: the one-week extension passed yesterday (in the House) actually did include $12B in cuts.

And, Z, I initially started out with Republicans haggling down, too, but the sticking points aren't the main cuts, it's the policy riders: planned parenthood and the EPA. The reason I turned it around to make Republicans be the ones asking for more extravagance is because they're hanging their hats on political luxuries that they know they'll never get. That was the point.

So while your counter example was a creative show of tit-for-tat, I don't know that it's analogous to the actual negotiations. That is to say: I tried to present an analogy to the current disposition, and it looks like you conjured up some fiction in order to score points against people you don't like.

[stebo0728]

I considered my rework because in reality, its the dems that are more apt to hang on the the heavy spending, not the repubes, but then srellims rework was better as in reality, though I consider the repubes a shade better, its only a shade, and not any great amount of difference.

[stebo0728]

Oh and yes, its Boners job to get a budget, but its also Boners job to be fiscally responsible for the tax dollars he's driving, money that isnt his, but ours. Now Im not really claiming that he or the republicans have any definable amount of fiscal responsibility above the dems, that remains to be seen by the outcome of this showdown. Im for them holding their ground and demanding as many cuts as possible, despite the shutdown.

But what do I know ...

[IBCoupe]

I considered my rework because in reality, its the dems that are more apt to hang on the the heavy spending, not the repubes, but then srellims rework was better as in reality, though I consider the repubes a shade better, its only a shade, and not any great amount of difference.

Well, sure, but that's responding to a specific point with a generality.

That's like me saying, "Man, that Genesis Coupe is one fun car to drive." and then you might respond, "No, Hyundais are boring."

[IBCoupe]

Oh and yes, its Boners job to get a budget, but its also Boners job to be fiscally responsible for the tax dollars he's driving, money that isnt his, but ours. Now Im not really claiming that he or the republicans have any definable amount of fiscal responsibility above the dems, that remains to be seen by the outcome of this showdown. Im for them holding their ground and demanding as many cuts as possible, despite the shutdown.

But what do I know ...

My point is that his job is to come up with a budget that will pass through the Senate and the White House. Sure, he's free to come up with budgets that won't, but we need a budget, only the House can create them, and so if the government shuts down, there should be no confusion as to whose at fault for that.

Maybe you'd like a shut down, and so maybe you'd like Boehner to go ahead and own it and wear it proudly. Won't change the above facts.

[szh]

And, Z, I initially started out with Republicans haggling down, too, but the sticking points aren't the main cuts, it's the policy riders: planned parenthood and the EPA. The reason I turned it around to make Republicans be the ones asking for more extravagance is because they're hanging their hats on political luxuries that they know they'll never get. That was the point.

So while your counter example was a creative show of tit-for-tat, I don't know that it's analogous to the actual negotiations. That is to say: I tried to present an analogy to the current disposition, and it looks like you conjured up some fiction in order to score points against people you don't like.

Huhn? What did I say to get this reaction from you?

Z

[heliochrome85]

And, Z, I initially started out with Republicans haggling down, too, but the sticking points aren't the main cuts, it's the policy riders: planned parenthood and the EPA. The reason I turned it around to make Republicans be the ones asking for more extravagance is because they're hanging their hats on political luxuries that they know they'll never get. That was the point.

So while your counter example was a creative show of tit-for-tat, I don't know that it's analogous to the actual negotiations. That is to say: I tried to present an analogy to the current disposition, and it looks like you conjured up some fiction in order to score points against people you don't like.

Huhn? What did I say to get this reaction from you?

Z

he hates you cause you are brown. and muslin.

[szh]

Yeah, but it's Boehner's job to get them paid.

Okay.

We were all paying attention when they read the Constitution aloud at the start of the term, right? I mean, what else would be the point if doing so. It's not like it was a meaningless gesture or anything.

That was not the point I was making, and you know it. Dragging in a complete nonsequitor like this is what you accuse others of doing!

Z

[szh]

he hates you cause you are brown. and muslin.

Oh, well ...

Z

[IBCoupe]

Nah, i was mistaken. Thought it was you, not Stebo, who had posted the rehash of my post.

And, I accused you of constructing strawmen. And I've asked people not to make nonsequiturial arguments. What I did was tease you - I know what your point was back in that thread, and I know what my point was, too: that it was a meaningless gesture.