PDA

View Full Version : Brinksmanship



Henlee
09-24-2013, 07:19 PM
The last time congress got into a game of brinksmanship it cost us our triple A credit rating. The credit agency that lowered it cited as the cause the stated intent to not pay the bills. The stock market has been down for the last four days on the news out of Washington. Is anyone else concerned about the consequences of politics on the economy?

Brad Turner
09-24-2013, 07:32 PM
If our "government" (I use this word loosely) would not spend money so irresponsibly, we would not need to borrow money. Frankly, I'm tired of mortgaging my children's future. If we would live within our means, we wouldn't have to worry about our credit rating.

sick lids
09-24-2013, 07:33 PM
No the government has enough toys it could sell off, and more than enough non essential people to let go!

BonMallari
09-24-2013, 08:30 PM
until the American voter gets their "rear ends" handed to them and really feels the consequences of elections, they wont change their ways...Do I want to see the country fail ? Of course not, but the country refuses to learn from its mistakes and keeps making the same bonehead moves and keeps electing the same type of slick talking snake oil salesman..

I see it now at work,the largely Hispanic group of employees is now seeing how we may lose or at least have our healthcare impacted, but the union glosses over the fact that its because of the new restrictions of the ACA, we will go to 30 hr work weeks, which is fine by many of us because we dont live by our paychecks, but for those who do, they are seeing what a 25% cut of an hourly wage is going to look like...These are the same folks that wore BHO campaign buttons and now curse the word Obamacare

huntinman
09-24-2013, 11:03 PM
Big deal, shut it down. They shut down every weekend and we don't miss them. They don't do a damn thing during the week except make things worse and spend more money.

Henlee
09-25-2013, 09:41 AM
So you all approve of the tactics being used and will be ok having them used against you in the future?

BonMallari
09-25-2013, 10:15 AM
So you all approve of the tactics being used and will be ok having them used against you in the future?

you statement is like those used by people when they argue about the tactics used by the military during any conflict...The American public as a whole has no real idea what has been done all in the name of maintaining freedom,defeating Communism or now terrorism, all under the banner of the Flag...

I am not naive to think that whatever "tactics" you are referring to have not been going on for decades, its just brought out more in the forefront with this 24/7 news cycle,and just because they do go on , dont mistake that as an approval by anyone as to their continued use

luvmylabs23139
09-25-2013, 10:40 AM
So you all approve of the tactics being used and will be ok having them used against you in the future?

The dems work against the hard working FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAYER every day. All they do is steal from federal income taxpayers and give that hard earned money to their leeching base.
I would be fine with anything that cuts off the leeches!

Henlee
09-25-2013, 11:30 AM
I personally don't like when congress holds the economy hostage. I wouldn't like it if Dems were in charge and I don't like if Republicans are in charge. I disapprove of how they are doing things. It is not supposed to be how they are supposed to be acting, it is embarrassing to me. If you are cool with it whatever.

luvmylabs23139
09-25-2013, 11:40 AM
I personally don't like when congress holds the economy hostage. I wouldn't like it if Dems were in charge and I don't like if Republicans are in charge. I disapprove of how they are doing things. It is not supposed to be how they are supposed to be acting, it is embarrassing to me. If you are cool with it whatever.
I hate that as a federal income taxpayer I'm screwed at every turn by the non taxpayer legally stealing what I worked for! The fact that any lawmaker refuses to defend the taxpayer against the leech makes me vomit,

Gerry Clinchy
09-25-2013, 07:33 PM
Cruz has already stated, that the govt need not be shut down. Once the bill goes back to the house, they can pass individual bills funding individual agencies ... nothing needs to shut down at all. If the Senate votes against those bills, who is shutting down the govt?

If I had to guess, I believe Cruz has studied long and hard on the inner workings of both houses and how the system can be tweaked. I would expect that of a kid who could memorize the Constitution when he was still in high school.

Hearing McCain speak on radio, it is just plain embarrassing to listen to him. He sounds like an envious man ... he might have wanted to be the leader that Cruz is being.

Henlee
09-25-2013, 10:09 PM
I agree with you. I feel that there ought to be a minimum tax that everybody pays. No loopholes or exceptions. Everybody has a stake in this country and ought to contribute. I was asking though about how congress acts. I don't like it and was wondering if you all mind it or not.

Gerry Clinchy
09-25-2013, 11:21 PM
WRT how Congress acts, it is a group of individuals. If Congress acts badly, it is because the individuals act badly.

Too many of these individuals have made a career of Congress. That, to me, was not the intention of the Founders. Clearly, the Founders did not want a king. Basically, 30-year Congress-people have taken on the trappings of kings.

Congress' pension plan would be much less of a burden if individuals did not serve 30 years! There would be much less opportunity for corruption with shorter terms due to less power vested in a small number of individuals for such an extended period of time. And, as someone else suggested, after leaving Congress they should not be allowed to become lobbyists. I think they finally passed a law against the insider trading that was permitted to members of Congress. It is shameful that it ever was allowed.

At the very least, perhaps Cruz will accomplish some important revisions to O-care ... such as eliminating ALL exemptions ("waivers") ... Congress should live by the law, just like their constituents will have to do.

Henlee
09-25-2013, 11:38 PM
Congress does act as a group. Their are the individual problems also, but by and large their are not enough individual actors. I don't feel that the length of a members term is that important, but I do feel that a reelection ought to be a condemnation or an admiration of the job they have done. Law Makers have done to much to stack the odds in their favor. The way that congressional maps are drawn out is a joke. It almost insults the idea of a democracy. I don't even feel that party names ought to be allowed on ballots, much less if the are incumbent or not. Straight party voting ought to be done away with also. If you don't know who to vote for then don't vote! I do not feel that any entity other than a human being ought to be allowed to contribute to a campaign. I do not think house members ought to have access to the house floor during votes after they leave office. I do not think they ought to be allowed to be lobbyist either.

Gerry Clinchy
09-26-2013, 11:47 AM
From the experience we have had, I just can't agree that a legislator serving 20 or 30 years is a good idea. By being in The Beltway that long, they lose touch with the realities of their constituents. Many of these legislators have done nothing but be govt employees.

They have no idea about balancing a budget in a private sector company, nor effective cost controls, nor the problems and costs that govt mandates create for the private sector. They make laws about things about which they have no knowledge, and don't seem to care about finding out about those things at the grass-roots levels. Before they could make laws about gun control, they should have to attend seminars to learn what the heck kinds of guns they're regulating, for example. Then they go and exempt themselves from laws!

Can't recall if it was Romney, Sr. or McGovern who, a while back, made a statement to the effect that after leaving govt and going into the private sector, their whole perspective changed; that if they had known, while in govt, what they learned from the private sector experience, it would have made a large diffrence in their lawmaking votes.

Since the electorate is so heavily influenced by sound bites and half-truths, it seems that the only way to solve the problem is with term limits. After FDR was elected 4 times, it became evident that a POTUS could become king-like, and the precedent set by George Washington was not enough to assure that would not happen. Yet many legislators have fiefdoms. How else could Nancy Pelosi remain in Congress so long? or that fellow who thought Guam would tip over from too many people?

Henlee
09-26-2013, 12:33 PM
I don't mind if a legislator is continually elected. I don't like how easy the parties have made it for them to be reelected. With a reelection rate of 85% and an approval rate of 19% there is something broken in the election process. The biggest problem I see with that how congressional district maps are drawn up. There are more, but I feel that is the place to start. If a representative can win 15 fair elections that is fine, but I don't think most elections are fair.

A lot of good business practices do apply to government. There are lessons to be learned there, but it is very important to remember that government is not a business and should not be run like one.

Since the electorate is so heavily influenced by sound bites and half-truths, it seems that the only way to solve the problem is with term limits

I don't see how term limits would make the electorate more critical thinkers. There is an advantage of having some stability in government. We have term limits here in Michigan and our state politics are a joke. Once in their final terms none of our lawmakers care about the long term effects of the laws they pass, because it will no longer be their problem. There are big problems with the system and the parties themselves. No restraint, no compromises, no ethics.

charly_t
09-26-2013, 12:51 PM
From the experience we have had, I just can't agree that a legislator serving 20 or 30 years is a good idea. By being in The Beltway that long, they lose touch with the realities of their constituents. Many of these legislators have done nothing but be govt employees.

They have no idea about balancing a budget in a private sector company, nor effective cost controls, nor the problems and costs that govt mandates create for the private sector. They make laws about things about which they have no knowledge, and don't seem to care about finding out about those things at the grass-roots levels. Before they could make laws about gun control, they should have to attend seminars to learn what the heck kinds of guns they're regulating, for example. Then they go and exempt themselves from laws!

Can't recall if it was Romney, Sr. or McGovern who, a while back, made a statement to the effect that after leaving govt and going into the private sector, their whole perspective changed; that if they had known, while in govt, what they learned from the private sector experience, it would have made a large diffrence in their lawmaking votes.

Since the electorate is so heavily influenced by sound bites and half-truths, it seems that the only way to solve the problem is with term limits. After FDR was elected 4 times, it became evident that a POTUS could become king-like, and the precedent set by George Washington was not enough to assure that would not happen. Yet many legislators have fiefdoms. How else could Nancy Pelosi remain in Congress so long? or that fellow who thought Guam would tip over from too many people?

Bingo ! Great post. FDR really messed up a lot of things. Younger people who did not live during his time in office just don't get the harm that his terms did.

Gerry Clinchy
09-26-2013, 01:40 PM
And McCain calls Paul and Cruz "wacko birds"?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/26/obama-claims-no-widespread-evidence-health-law-hurts-jobs-amid-cutbacks/

Today Obama is declaring that "there is no evidence that O-care is hurting jobs." Remember how he found out in the news that there was a problem at the IRS? (or was it one of the other scandals?) Evidently, now he isn't even reading/watching news anymore ... much less the letter from the AFL-CIO.

This is such a blatant untruth that if the MSM don't call him out on this, they are even worse than we believe.

swampcollielover
09-26-2013, 01:46 PM
I agree with a lot of what you all are saying, but I do not believe that we and others will be motivated enough to act until we feel more pain. Until that point is reached, most will set around a tell others what is wrong with it, and what needs to be done. Then we go vote and don't understand what the heck happened! Couple that with the fact that most young and many middle aged adults have no knowledge or interest in our Government, they cannot name their Congressional Representatives, or talk intelligently about our Constitution. Until the pain comes, they will not do anything other than take what they are given and maybe vote for whom ever they see on the Internet.....Hope is hard to find....only Mark Levin and his book Liberty Amendments has offered a solution...but no one is listening! So let the pain begin....next week with Obamacare!

sick lids
09-26-2013, 08:04 PM
So you all approve of the tactics being used and will be ok having them used against you in the future?
Should they just start shooting at each other?

Gerry Clinchy
09-26-2013, 08:32 PM
I personally don't like when congress holds the economy hostage. I wouldn't like it if Dems were in charge and I don't like if Republicans are in charge. I disapprove of how they are doing things. It is not supposed to be how they are supposed to be acting, it is embarrassing to me. If you are cool with it whatever.
I think this is why Congress approval rating is so low ... bi-partisanly :-)

However, this, too, is part of the example that the POTUS would be setting. When he says he won't negotiate, and when he uses name-calling to ridicule those who disagree with him, and executive orders to ignore laws he doesn't like, it becomes a street fight. Yet nobody blames Obama for any of this, yet he is the one who has said he won't negotiate. He'll negotiate with Putin, Assad and Iran ... but he won't negotiate with his own Congress?

We cannot continue to raise the debt without concern for the consequences. We'll end up like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy. And who is there to bail out the US? There isn't any country that could do that.

Henlee
09-30-2013, 10:07 AM
Putin, Assad and Iran are easier to get along with 8 ). The negotiations for these laws are already over, happened when they passed them. Now it is time to cut the check. The R's are trying to get a little something, something for nothing. They are not offering to do anything other than what they are required to do in the first place. A government shutdown has a 250,000,000 price tag per day. Any concession on Obama's part will have such a huge political price tag that there is no way he would enter into a discussion. Since the R's are going to take the entire blame also there is politically no advantage to help them out either. This does fall squarely on the shoulders of Boehner for being a weak leader in the house. There has been a lot of disarray in the handling of this and other issues in the house. A lot of that has to do with the fractures in the Republican party. The R's really do need to split off at some point from the tea party.

swampcollielover
09-30-2013, 10:17 AM
This is what we get when your youth for two generations have not been taught Civics and American History. Top that with our society allowing the major networks and newspapers to be taken over by Liberals. Add to that the Liberal control of most major Social Networks and you have a propaganda machine that has not been seen since 1937 Germany. The House of Representatives is our last line of defense, backed up by a number of Radio networks and Fox News.....we are behind and the clock is running out of time.....prepare for the worst....prey for the best...take action at every opportunity!

Gerry Clinchy
09-30-2013, 12:26 PM
The negotiations for these laws are already over, happened when they passed them.
This was NOT the case for Obamacare.

I mentioned this before, but will repeat it once more:
The House never got to vote on O-care! Reid used sleight of hand to strip the guts out of another appropriations bill that the House had passed. Then totally replaced the contents with Obamacare. That was the ONLY way they could get O-care passed. It was an outright usurpation of the Origination Clause of the Constitution.

This was "legal" in theory, but a real bastardization of the process for a bill that would have such far-reaching effects on the country. O-care was put in place by just over 50 individuals ... who now want to make sure that the law does not apply to them!

How many of those people would be in jail if the insider trading rules that apply to the private sector had also applied to members of Congress over the years? How many citizens could repeated "kite" checks with no funds available in their account, and not end up with a felony conviction? Yet, these are the same people who made O-care law, and once again exempted themselves from the laws of the land.

Is there a way to impeach Harry Reid?

Henlee
09-30-2013, 02:00 PM
These proceedings are bigger than Obamacare. it is still not an appropriate forum to address it either. More Appropriate would be any of the other 50 times they tried to repeal it. Which they could not pass either. This a lot more about one section of the government trying to control the rest. I really don't know what you are talking about in the house votes on the ACA, so I haven't commented on it. I have not heard any of the republican leaders talk about it in their media interviews, either way I consider it a non-issue. The law passed, everything after that is whining.

paul young
09-30-2013, 02:59 PM
prey for the best...take action at every opportunity!

Freudian slip?

Gerry Clinchy
09-30-2013, 03:04 PM
From American Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/03/obamacares-hideous-history-rec


Sixth, the Senate had to pull other procedural rabbits from its hat in order to make up for not letting the House originate a revenue-raising bill and to make up for the loss of Massachusetts’ Senate seat to Scott Brown. Chief among these was taking an orphan House bill and stripping everything from the bill but the number, replacing the entire text with the text of Obamacare. Again, this is legal, but hardly an admirable way to force through a bill of this size and importance on a party-line vote.

You are correct, Henlee, the Republicans are not talking about this ... because there is not a dang thing they can do about it at this point. Would it really do them any good to point this out in this discussion? Republicans should have been loudly outraged at the time this was done. The Ds relied on the old adage, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

Like Hillary, they now would say, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" or another WH fall-back for Fast & Furious, "This is old news." Like you, many voters overlooked how this was all "managed" in the cloakroom.

This article, BTW, also points out some other interesting circumstances surrounding the passage of the law. Not such a small one was Arlen Spector's change of party at about this time as well. Arlen must be McCain's role model?


Then, eleventh, he had to fool enough pro-life Democrats (who had to be stupid enough or cynical enough to let themselves be “fooled”) into believing that an executive order from him could carry enough of the force of law to ensure that no public funds would be used for abortions, and that his administration would actually observe both the letter and the spirit of that order. (The final, official House tally was 219-212, but the de facto passage was by only one vote — several of the “aye” votes would not have switched in that direction at the last minute unless they had enough “cover” to say they weren’t the single vote that pushed it over the top.)

Remember, the Ds also controlled the House when O-care was passed. You may remember "The Corn Husker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase"? Whatever the outcome of O-care, there can be no "spinning" on the fact that the Ds "own" this law. Although, if it turns out badly, Obama will probably lay it at Reid's and Pelosi's doorstep ... Obama is always just a bystander.

Fifth, Harry Reid had to play parliamentary hardball (and Mitch McConnell had to let him get away with it) in order to force the key vote on initial Senate passage before the Senate left for Christmas break of 2009 — whereas if senators had gone home for Christmas and heard first-hand the intensity of public opposition, not even the various Kickbacks and Purchases (and other special deals) would have sufficed to keep some of the senators on board for the one-vote victory.
I might disagree with this being an unimportant issue when discussing fiscal issues. Think of the fiscal impact of Medicare. O-care will be bigger. O-care is already estimated to be 2X the initial cost estimates ... and it hasn't even really started yet.

I think the House made an error in making so many votes for repeal ... as long as the Senate was controlled by Ds the House votes were just symbolic. Or maybe not. They continued to go on record in their opposition to the law, symbolically or not.

Gerry Clinchy
09-30-2013, 07:35 PM
In a press release Monday evening Senator Ted Cruz (http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345846)vowed to donate his salary to charity for each day Majority Leader Harry Reid forces the government to shut down.

"Harry Reid should not force a government shutdown. I hope that Reid stops refusing to negotiate and works with the House to avoid a government shutdown, and, at the same time, prevent the enormous harms that Obamacare is inflicting on the American people.




"If, however, Harry Reid forces a government shutdown, I intend to donate my salary to charity for each day the government is shut down. Elected leaders should not be treated better than the American people, which is precisely why hardworking Americans deserve the same Obamacare exception that President Obama has already granted Members of Congress."

Finally, there is someone who keeps the pressure on Reid. Notice that he has used the phrase "...Harry Reid forces a government shutdown."