US Government shutdown

I agree entirely. Both parties are deeply involved in being the cause. Unfortunately, since the Tea Party candidates refuse to compromise on anything for any reason, the only way I see for the President to act Presidential is to announce that he'll accept a continuing resolution once only. That the purpose of the continuing resolution is to provide time to agree to a budget and that no further continuing resolution will be granted without a veto override. Then government will indeed be shut down until a real budget exists and the continuing resolution had better last long enough for congress to do their Constitutionally required job of providing a budget. While Fly mentions a Senate responsibility to provide the budget to the President, all spending bills originate in the House and a budget requires agreement from both houses of congress.

Donnachaidh wrote:It's always seemed to me that not having a budget is never the way to go. Whether it's an individual, a company, or any level of government.

The lack of budget is something that every single member of congress is responsible for. The fact is both sides are playing politics with the budget.

thinkstoomuch wrote:The only thing I can say is what has been happening for the last 6 years is not the way to go.

Ths is probably going to be a one time post as you have found your way onto my ignore list for claiming to the world "He's touching me" one too many times.

Really both sides are at fault? So in 2009 and 2010 when we started living pay check to pay check as a nation the Republicans are as much at fault as the Democrats.

Talk about disillusioned.

Short quick hint the "D"s controlled all three branchs of government. They didn't even have a vote for one in any of them.

Notice you cut out the context of my post that shows the "D"s control of the senate and the house equates to deficits getting bigger. Why am I so surprised?

I don't hold the "R"s as blameless but saying they both are just as much at fault is a nice fantasy.

Whatever,
T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:It's always seemed to me that not having a budget is never the way to go. Whether it's an individual, a company, or any level of government.

The lack of budget is something that every single member of congress is responsible for. The fact is both sides are playing politics with the budget.

Tea Party candidates won't compromise. Imagine that that is what they ran on(fortunately(?) they are a very small minority). That is what there constituents put them there to do. Imagine a elected official living up to his campaign promises.

Reid couldn't get one Republican to vote to pass a budget. Hell all he had to do was the "health care" bill passed promise the moon, then act surprised when that part had to be stripped out. Showing that Senator and everyone else in question the value of a promise from him was worth. So that gullible Senator is no longer a Senator his electorate punished him as he deserved.

Though of course as you say budgets should originate in the House. Did the Democratically controlled House ever pass a budget bill in 2009 or 2010 for the Senate to consider?

Sorry I just don't agree. Yes I do hold Republicans accountable for the state we are in. How many times does Lucy have to pull the football for Charlie Brown to get a clue? He never did in the comic strip and apparently the same holds true for too many politicians.

Have fun,
T2M

PS I am still waiting for those spending cuts President Bush was promised in 1990 to show up.

PPS Went looking for some old numbers on how the balanced budget was achieved in the 90's. Unfortunately unlike government health care that gov website is closed. Costs too much to maintain some data connections. My apologies best I can tell you is about the surplus was 1/3 of the excess taxes collected for future social security payouts. That aren't going to happen anyway.

ksandgren wrote:I agree entirely. Both parties are deeply involved in being the cause. Unfortunately, since the Tea Party candidates refuse to compromise on anything for any reason, the only way I see for the President to act Presidential is to announce that he'll accept a continuing resolution once only. That the purpose of the continuing resolution is to provide time to agree to a budget and that no further continuing resolution will be granted without a veto override. Then government will indeed be shut down until a real budget exists and the continuing resolution had better last long enough for congress to do their Constitutionally required job of providing a budget. While Fly mentions a Senate responsibility to provide the budget to the President, all spending bills originate in the House and a budget requires agreement from both houses of congress.

Actually there is a part of your view that I agree with. Living with Democrats in charge of both branches of congress throughout the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon years resulted in the massive spending of "The Great Society" and many of the entitlements that drive the budget badly. I don't want another Democratic House because I agree with your interpretation of the likely outcome. But a Tea Party that rules by decree and not negotiation is going to result in exactly that situation in either 2015 or 2017. The number of Tea Party Dupes may increase, but the Republicans as whole will loose the House.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Ths is probably going to be a one time post as you have found your way onto my ignore list for claiming to the world "He's touching me" one too many times.

Really both sides are at fault? So in 2009 and 2010 when we started living pay check to pay check as a nation the Republicans are as much at fault as the Democrats.

Talk about disillusioned.

Short quick hint the "D"s controlled all three branchs of government. They didn't even have a vote for one in any of them.

Notice you cut out the context of my post that shows the "D"s control of the senate and the house equates to deficits getting bigger. Why am I so surprised?

I don't hold the "R"s as blameless but saying they both are just as much at fault is a nice fantasy.

Whatever,
T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:It's always seemed to me that not having a budget is never the way to go. Whether it's an individual, a company, or any level of government.

The lack of budget is something that every single member of congress is responsible for. The fact is both sides are playing politics with the budget.

The point I was trying to make wasn't how at fault the Democrats or Republicans are. I was trying to say that I hold every member of congress at fault because it is their responsibility as a group to create and approve a budget and they have not. I'm at the point that I just want to fire everyone in the Legislative and Executive branches regardless of party affiliation or past performance because of their collective failure to even have a budget let alone have a reasonably balanced one. I don't care who's at fault anymore, all of them have that responsibility and they have all failed.

I'm also completely fed up with the budget being used by one side to make the other side do something (I'm not saying that this has happened every time, just that it does). I'm 25, statistically I'll be living with their stupidity for at least 50 years and I'm tired of feeling so cynical about those 50+ years.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Ths is probably going to be a one time post as you have found your way onto my ignore list for claiming to the world "He's touching me" one too many times.

Really both sides are at fault? So in 2009 and 2010 when we started living pay check to pay check as a nation the Republicans are as much at fault as the Democrats.

Talk about disillusioned.

Short quick hint the "D"s controlled all three branchs of government. They didn't even have a vote for one in any of them.

Notice you cut out the context of my post that shows the "D"s control of the senate and the house equates to deficits getting bigger. Why am I so surprised?

I don't hold the "R"s as blameless but saying they both are just as much at fault is a nice fantasy.

Whatever,
T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:It's always seemed to me that not having a budget is never the way to go. Whether it's an individual, a company, or any level of government.

The lack of budget is something that every single member of congress is responsible for. The fact is both sides are playing politics with the budget.

The administration has ruled by decree or rather EOs. The Tea Party hasn't ruled anything yet. Just as the Dems refuse to give one iota on abortion, the Tea Partys refuse to give one iota on their one common principle: fiscally conservative governance.

Why then is a refusal compromise an essential belief admirable in Dems/liberals but worthy of scorn in conservatives?

ksandgren wrote:Actually there is a part of your view that I agree with. Living with Democrats in charge of both branches of congress throughout the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon years resulted in the massive spending of "The Great Society" and many of the entitlements that drive the budget badly. I don't want another Democratic House because I agree with your interpretation of the likely outcome. But a Tea Party that rules by decree and not negotiation is going to result in exactly that situation in either 2015 or 2017. The number of Tea Party Dupes may increase, but the Republicans as whole will loose the House.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Ths is probably going to be a one time post as you have found your way onto my ignore list for claiming to the world "He's touching me" one too many times.

Really both sides are at fault? So in 2009 and 2010 when we started living pay check to pay check as a nation the Republicans are as much at fault as the Democrats.

Talk about disillusioned.

Short quick hint the "D"s controlled all three branchs of government. They didn't even have a vote for one in any of them.

Notice you cut out the context of my post that shows the "D"s control of the senate and the house equates to deficits getting bigger. Why am I so surprised?

I don't hold the "R"s as blameless but saying they both are just as much at fault is a nice fantasy.

Whatever,
T2M

Not to deny the possible repercussions projected by ksandgren. But sooner or later someone has to draw a line in the sand, the commons or wherever. If nobody draws the line the beach keeps eroding.

It might not happen the American Public might figure out how to do basic analysis. No great hope in this corner.

But PeterZ I know you know the answer. The "progressives" (both Democratic and Republican) have better PR apparatus. Plain and simple.

Add in the fact that some of the Tea Party type people, not a political party, more of a movement have some genuine crazy types(yep I have met some) and the PR perception is lost. They are the ones who get all the exposure not "average" Tea Party person.

It will sooner or later get to the point where someone else paying for "my" stuff from the government will be be understood for the falsehood it is.

The people will pay for it now or later. Like the old commercial "pay me now or pay me (more)later.

We all have our dream.

After all read this story on the BBC site by Mardell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24394644

So anything can happen.

A Hopeful,
T2M

PeterZ wrote:The administration has ruled by decree or rather EOs. The Tea Party hasn't ruled anything yet. Just as the Dems refuse to give one iota on abortion, the Tea Partys refuse to give one iota on their one common principle: fiscally conservative governance.

Why then is a refusal compromise an essential belief admirable in Dems/liberals but worthy of scorn in conservatives?

Dont actually have a point to make but found this funny

http://xkcd.com/1274/

Dont actually have a point to make but found this funny

http://xkcd.com/1274/

I think the Catholics may be onto something. Remember the papal election last spring? The Cardinals were locked into the Vatican and they couldn't leave until a pope had been selected.... This brings to mind lots of interesting ideas for the congress + Obama. Lock them all into a building together and don't let them leave until they have produced a balanced budget.