PDA

View Full Version : Dear leader: Paying troops is "A DISTRACTION!"



LWW
04-07-2011, 03:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.

For the past several weeks, the Administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This bill is a distraction</span> from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nationís economic recovery in jeopardy. </div></div>

Yet dear leader still gets paid. (http://majorityleader.house.gov/blog/2011/04/funding-our-troops-is-a-distraction.html)

Soflasnapper
04-07-2011, 03:27 PM
You and Cantor should get together.

Both have a fine sense of how to distort plain English to mean something it patently did not mean. I see you like and headline his spin, which is quite false, and represents political gamesmanship over substance.

To be clear, that the troops' pay was one of the government shutdown victims was slightly embarrassing to the GOP, and perhaps even to their T-Party caucus. So they throw this out at the last day or so, and try to leverage that part for another extortion effort at now cutting $12 billion-- THIS WEEK. For one week's extension of a CR.

LWW
04-07-2011, 03:50 PM
Are you claiming the White House did not in fact make that statement?

pooltchr
04-07-2011, 04:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and represents political gamesmanship over substance.



</div></div>

Isn't that exactly what this whole issue is really all about? The Dems had control of both sides of congress and the white house last October, when they were supposed to have this year's budget completed. But, they didn't want to put out the over spending bill to the public just before an election where they already knew they were going to take a beating.

Now, they only hold 2 of the 3. Republicans in the house, doing exactly what the people who put them there wanted, have proposed a budget that cuts down the spending. Now, who is standing in their way? That would be the Democrats in the Senate, and Obama.

Yet, the Dems and the media are trying to convince the public that it is the Republicans who will ultimately cause the shutdown.

If that isn't political gamesmanship, I don't know what is.

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-08-2011, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you claiming the White House did not in fact make that statement? </div></div>

It was said that THE BILL WAS A DISTRACTION, not that paying the troops is a distraction. That last is Cantor's pathetic spin.

First the right said it was a lie that failing to get another CR would stop the payments to the troops. Their Fox pundits called for a Democrat on the broadcast to denounce this lie, which they said was only a typical scare tactic.

Evidently it wasn't a lie at all, and now the GOP realizes that playing chicken to attain their extortionist maximalist demands may not play well with the public.

So at a final hour, they now come up with this non-starter, which extorts another $12 billion out of nowhere, a number they came up with out of their anal cavities, as their price to not have the embarrassment and political downside for them of cutting off pay for the troops and their families.

This isn't even good gamesmanship, as their extortion is like the new black sheriff in town in Blazing Saddles holding the gun to his head and saying let him go, or the [black guy] gets it.

Soflasnapper
04-08-2011, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and represents political gamesmanship over substance.



</div></div>

Isn't that exactly what this whole issue is really all about? The Dems had control of both sides of congress and the white house last October, when they were supposed to have this year's budget completed. But, they didn't want to put out the over spending bill to the public just before an election where they already knew they were going to take a beating.

Now, they only hold 2 of the 3. Republicans in the house, doing exactly what the people who put them there wanted, have proposed a budget that cuts down the spending. Now, who is standing in their way? That would be the Democrats in the Senate, and Obama.

Yet, the Dems and the media are trying to convince the public that it is the Republicans who will ultimately cause the shutdown.

If that isn't political gamesmanship, I don't know what is.

Steve </div></div>

As soon as the GOP got Scott Brown elected and seated, they had absolute veto power over any Senate action, including passing a budget bill or bills. That formal level of power only cemented their constructive veto power they had before, since even with 60 votes on the Dem majority side (which they only had for maybe 4 months), every single one had to be there (i.e., not in a hospital) AND agree to vote for cloture (and there were generally one to a couple of Dems, or people caucusing with the Dems like Joe Lieberman (I-Insurance), who would vote with the GOP.

So, while I guess it hasn't occurred to you to realize this, the failure of the Dems to pass the budget has a bipartisan cause. So, while the GOP cannot themselves pass anything, they could and did prevent those who could pass something (and by majorities) from passing anything. Now, after their obstructionism prevented funding bills from being passed, they want to get their own wet dream list of favorites put into the budget using the extortionate method of refusing to even pass temporary CRs so that actual budget negotiations can take place, just hey, now THEY win everything they want, not in regular order, but with last minute poison pill bills?

People warn of the tyranny of the majority, but this is the tyranny of the minority-- a deliberate abuse of process. Not gamesmanship-- abuse.

And this CR proposal by Cantor and Co. is a punk gangster move.

pooltchr
04-08-2011, 11:12 AM
Sorry, my friend, but that is a crock.
Year after year, whether or not one party had a super majority, or even close to one, somehow, they managed to pass a budget.

Why did the Dems have to have all their people to do it? All they had to do was work like past congresses and work out, ie, compromise, to get their job done. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Isn't that how it's always worked in the past? Why was last year different?

Could it be because the Dems knew they would be crusified by the voters if they passed the budget they wanted? Maybe they knew that the Reps would end their super majorities, and then they could kick the budget can down the road, where they could make the Reps the scapegoat?

Did the Reps and TP campaign on a pledge to cut spending? Is that not what the people voted for? So why is it so hard for the Dems to accept that the public wants reduced spending, which is exactly what the Rep budget proposes?

The dems are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-08-2011, 12:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry, my friend, but that is a crock.
Year after year, whether or not one party had a super majority, or even close to one, somehow, they managed to pass a budget.

Why did the Dems have to have all their people to do it? All they had to do was work like past congresses and work out, ie, compromise, to get their job done. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Isn't that how it's always worked in the past? Why was last year different?

Could it be because the Dems knew they would be crusified by the voters if they passed the budget they wanted? Maybe they knew that the Reps would end their super majorities, and then they could kick the budget can down the road, where they could make the Reps the scapegoat?

Did the Reps and TP campaign on a pledge to cut spending? Is that not what the people voted for? So why is it so hard for the Dems to accept that the public wants reduced spending, which is exactly what the Rep budget proposes?

The dems are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Steve </div></div>

The Democrats are too fractious within their own caucus to filibuster a GOP Senate majority, so that generally, this rule by minority veto doesn't occur when Dems are in the minority, only when the GOP is in the minority.

Perhaps you recall that Clinton's first budget, in which he raised the top tax bracket's rate, passed by only a single vote in the Senate (the Veep's)? That was with about 56 Democratic senators. You can count on the Democrats to have a handful of conservatives or Blue Dogs or whatever you call them, who will not vote the party line, to almost make any Democratic majority an even-steven net result.

If you haven't noticed that it is the GOP's prime strategy to filibuster EVERYTHING, and if you think that is the regular order that is always used, you really need to look into this. Utter and complete obstruction of all processes and nominations to the limit of their ability is what they've been doing. They haven't even allowed the president to fully staff the executive branch yet, now into his third year.

If you remember the LAST shutdown, it was the same methodology being used here. After Clinton agreed with Gingrich on the balanced budget, that it would be in 7 years, and that they would use the (proven less accurate at the time) CBO numbers instead of OMB numbers, THEN Gingrich demanded in his House budget that there be about $250 billion in tax cuts, and because of the pay-go aspects of balancing the budget, about $250 billion in CUTS to MEDICARE. After Clinton vetoed that, then Gingrich simply demanded his price for any CR was to get what he couldn't get by the legislative process, as extortion.

Very similar to what is going on now. Cut the culture wars, take the agreement on the money side which now exists, and stop letting the rump minority of the red-hots on the GOP side spew their spit-feckled slogans out of their ignorant little mouths. (Yes, I mean you, Michelle Backman.)