sleeper;1510708 wrote:I don't think you're getting the point either. The notion that its more expensive because these people are going to need OT to catch up is false and a joke. Exempt employees don't get OT. Since working with a government client, I can tell you that few if any actually work 60+ hours a week. Most of the time they sit around and expect the consultant/contractor to do all the work.

Far from the truth when it comes to DoD acquisitions.

like_that;1510809 wrote:Far from the truth when it comes to DoD acquisitions.

I don't think there are many "pensioners" left in the DoD, so its pretty far from the truth for most DoD agencies.

QuakerOats;1510681 wrote:Only in the minds of those confined within the beltway. In the real world, when you shut something down - a factory, or an office - your costs go down. But in Washington costs go up??? Too funny. Next.

Wrong as usual.
The federal buildings, IT systems, and infrastructure are still open and costing us money. That fed building isn't very cost efficient (thanks to long cutbacks to the GSA Public Building Service)
Construction of building and systems have stopped in some cases, but will continue in others with cost overruns.
Contracts still need to be awarded, or procured, so that will continue for programs.
Nothing has been stopped, just delayed.
So, all that work will restart, but behind leading to cost overruns and missed deadlines. Don't like it, tough that is the way the procurement system works. Call your Congressman and ask them to change it.

Oh, and those fed workers will probably get all the pay back. So, no cost savings there.
So, building and IT systems are still running, contracts will have cost overruns, and feds will get paid still. And, I thought you were for controlled spending?

Oh, and contractors aren't getting paid, and may not, or may be let go. That could increase the unemployment rate.
But, go ahead and sit in your little world thinking this is such a great idea. You have no idea what you are talking about as usual.

I've been reading alot of Robert Costa from the National Review (he is very well connected with the Republican House) of late, and it is striking just how screwed Boehner is.

He doesn't have that big a majority, and can only lose like 16 votes. With Democrats holding firm against any and everything he is proposing he can't pass anything that could end this.

If Boehner brings a clean CR to the floor, the 30-40 Tea Party members will rebel, and render Boehner impotent. With Democrats refusing to offer any votes for him, it leaves him unable to pass anything without that Tea Party block, even though they are only 30-40 of 233 Republican votes.

Harry Reid and Pelosi are out for blood right now and know that if they can just keep party discipline they are going to cripple Boehner and the House Republicans when he inevitably has to bring the clean CR to the floor to end the crisis.

The Tea Party groups at that point will raise holy hell and revolt, and then the fun will really start up on capital hill.

I hadn't looked at the numbers, but the Democrat unity strategy makes alot more sense now because they know that it puts the Tea Party in charge. Politically they see that as a good thing for their electoral chances.

You all know I'm conservative, and think the ACA is an abomination.

However, this republican grandstanding on C-Span in the HoR, R-Georgia, Phil Gingrey might be the most retarded sounding public speaker I've ever seen. He makes Sarah Palin, George W Bush, and Joe Biden all sound like oratory geniouses.

Apparently he was an OBGYN before getting elected, I guess that explains it, looking at vaginas all day has made the blood leave his brain...

jmog;1510977 wrote:You all know I'm conservative, and think the ACA is an abomination.

However, this republican grandstanding on C-Span in the HoR, R-Georgia, Phil Gingrey might be the most retarded sounding public speaker I've ever seen. He makes Sarah Palin, George W Bush, and Joe Biden all sound like oratory geniouses.

Apparently he was an OBGYN before getting elected, I guess that explains it, looking at vaginas all day has made the blood leave his brain...

The whole thing was just un-necessary.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee sold the Tea Party groups a bill of goods when they started this quest to defund Obamacare knowing they didn't and wouldn't ever have the votes in the Senate to make it happen.

They put it all on the house, and got the Right wing media frothing at the mouth pushing this narrative that was never grounded in reality.

Now everyone has been backed into a corner and there is no face saving way out.

It almost feels like we are back in the twilight zone of the campaign last year where bad polls would come out about Romney, and the conservative answer was to ignore them and chalk it up to being rigged. There is a segment of the party that seems completely detached from reality anymore and there is just no reasoning with them as they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture or effectively advancing the cause.

IggyPride00;1510995 wrote:... as they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture or effectively advancing the cause.

What is this bigger picture, at least as you propose it?

Also, specifically what cause are we referring to?

IggyPride00;1510995 wrote:The whole thing was just un-necessary.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee sold the Tea Party groups a bill of goods when they started this quest to defund Obamacare knowing they didn't and wouldn't ever have the votes in the Senate to make it happen.

They put it all on the house, and got the Right wing media frothing at the mouth pushing this narrative that was never grounded in reality.

Now everyone has been backed into a corner and there is no face saving way out.

It almost feels like we are back in the twilight zone of the campaign last year where bad polls would come out about Romney, and the conservative answer was to ignore them and chalk it up to being rigged. There is a segment of the party that seems completely detached from reality anymore and there is just no reasoning with them as they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture or effectively advancing the cause.

I just think it is hilarious that liberals and the media LOVED it when the President and the Senate used a fiscal "trick" to get the ACA through the Senate. Which, obviously was not a "clean" way to do it. However, now when the republicans use the same or similar tactics to try to curtail the same law that is HIGHLY unpopular among the citizens, they cry foul.

You can't think the Rs are wrong for what they are doing now in the same breath be ok with how the Ds passed the ACA in the first place.

jmog;1511029 wrote:I just think it is hilarious that liberals and the media LOVED it when the President and the Senate used a fiscal "trick" to get the ACA through the Senate. Which, obviously was not a "clean" way to do it. However, now when the republicans use the same or similar tactics to try to curtail the same law that is HIGHLY unpopular among the citizens, they cry foul.

You can't think the Rs are wrong for what they are doing now in the same breath be ok with how the Ds passed the ACA in the first place.

The country has a long history of ramming bills through using reconciliation. It was the basis for both Bush tax cuts if I remember correctly.

We haven't that I can remember had either party basically decree they refuse to fund the government unless they get "X" concession.

That is like a step into the abyss compared to both parties having used reconciliation on numerous occasions.

What the House Republicans are doing now would have been the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi telling Bush in 2006 that under no circumstance would government or the War been funded without a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. It would have been madness.

IggyPride00;1511040 wrote: We haven't that I can remember had either party basically decree they refuse to fund the government unless they get "X" concession.

That is like a step into the abyss compared to both parties having used reconciliation on numerous occasions.

I guess you haven't seen the history of government shut downs. I hate using wiki, but here it is anyway. All you need to do is read the "Circumstances" column and look into the fact that MANY of them occured right after an election that one side got "burned" (like Reagon beating Carter, Ford getting elected, Clinton/Newt, etc).

I do believe the funniest ones were the Carter ones when the Dems owned everything (both houses and POTUS) and couldn't agree amongst themselves and shut the government down MANY times (5 times in less than 2 years). Now THAT is incompetance in a nut shell there.

Most government shut downs are exactly what you say "I can't remember either party basically decree they refuse to fund the government unless they get 'X'".

Read history of shut downs, nearly all of them are exactly what you just said.

The best example was the last one, the fight between Clinton and the new R controlled House and Senate.

Clinton vetoed a budget passed by both houses and the CR that followed it because he wanted to keep spending to prosperity (sound familiar?) and the newly elected Rs were put in power to balance a budget. The Repubs budget had "too many cuts" for Clinton.

Eventually Clinton saw the light and agreed to a proposed budget that eventually balanced the budget (even had surpluses) by the end of his term.

He said he was shutting down the government (aka veto'ing a budget that was passed by both houses, yes that used to actually happen, an actual budget passed by both houses) because he didn't want all the spending cuts. Now, the Rs took the brunt of the media punishment (imagine that) but in the end we now look at Clinton as the man who balanced the budget all because he finally agreed to what the Rs wanted...after 2 different government shut downs.

The Rs were right back then, they maybe right now...just saying.

IggyPride00;1511040 wrote:The country has a long history of ramming bills through using reconciliation. It was the basis for both Bush tax cuts if I remember correctly.

We haven't that I can remember had either party basically decree they refuse to fund the government unless they get "X" concession.

That is like a step into the abyss compared to both parties having used reconciliation on numerous occasions.

What the House Republicans are doing now would have been the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi telling Bush in 2006 that under no circumstance would government or the War been funded without a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. It would have been madness.

Actually, whether or not it was realistic, the message itself would at least be lip service to fiscal sanity. Pelosi saying, "If we're going to spend this extra money, we've got to stop cutting our revenue," is at least more fiscally sound than saying, "We're going to add an expenditure while doing absolutely dick about coming up with the money to do so."

Not saying the tax cuts would cover it. They wouldn't. But they'd be closer than otherwise.

Same applies here. Looking at the proposed expenditures, someone is saying something needs cut. I don't see the comparison being problematic.

gut;1510711 wrote:So were up to 60+ now? Big fucking deal, private sector people often work 80+ at budget time. You'll never convince me govt workers operate at even 80% efficiency of the private sector.

I don't think you get what an absolute joke your whining is to private sector employees.

yeah, well I work 90+ hours a week and squat 1000lbs working in the public sector. :RpS_w00t:

QuakerOats;1510693 wrote:Or, maybe work a little harder for a few days to catch up .............. novel concept.

yeah, lets build a time machine so tourists can go back in time and visit the national parks they missed while on vacation.

gut;1510701 wrote:Welcome to the real world. There are very few jobs that shouldn't be able to completely absorb a few days, even up to a week, of downtime. People do it all the time when they go on vacation for a week, and it's not because other people do their work while they're gone.

when does 40% of any workforce go on vacation at the same time?

Glory Days;1511087 wrote:yeah, lets build a time machine so tourists can go back in time and visit the national parks they missed while on vacation.

No offense, while I'm not happy about the shutdown, national parks are a minor point when compared to the current debt, deficit, reckless spending, and the ACA.

See this is why we need a real leader in office. Obama seems like a good guy but man this congress needs a real leader, and he fails miserably

Classyposter58;1511107 wrote:See this is why we need a real leader in office. Obama seems like a good guy but man this congress needs a real leader, and he fails miserably

Congress can't be led right now.

It is so well gerrymandered that most everyone on both sides of the aisle is in a safe district and have no fear of their constituents.

Like with everything computer data has gotten so good they can carve these districts up perfectly as they know who everyone is and who everyone is going to vote for. While Gerrymandering has always been part of Congress, they could never get to the level of detail they have now with advancements in technology.

In the old days when districts were far more evenly split it made extremism by either side far less likely because they feared being voted out of their seat if they drifted too far one way or the other.

Now the only fear is being primaried for not being far enough in a certain direction, not actually losing your seat in the general.

If America wanted to get serious about getting back to a functioning government there would be a push toward non-partisan districting. Many states have it, and it produces more competitive races.

It would also return moderates back to Congress, who for 200 years were the legislative conduit to make deals/compromises because their ability to keep their seat depended on it.

Iggy I got a lot of respect for you. You know your shit and most times I agree with you. Stop wetting your pants over the Republicans not immediately dropping their balls. Don't worry though eventually they will. It will remain to be seen if anything is gained or lossed from it.

IggyPride00;1511040 wrote:What the House Republicans are doing now would have been the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi telling Bush in 2006 that under no circumstance would government or the War been funded without a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. It would have been madness.

Not at all equivalent. Obama is going to sign a bill to continue paying troops. Cutting off funding for troops the nation has committed to war is not what is going on here. With the scenario you mention it would be congress attempting to force the president to surrender to a foreign power by cutting off funding for the war effort on the basis of a domestic dispute. That would be not just be political lunacy but would be putting political interests in front of national interests . And not at all what is happening here.

If a war has gone so shitty that funding needs cut to stop it congress needs to base that on the moral basis that the war was started, the ineptitude of the CIC's leadership of it, or the blood and treasure it is extracting from the nation. Not some domestic tax cut.

I love checks and balances. Its good government. Especially at the federal level when it affects all 300+ million of us. There is an aspect of Obamacare I like. But I know the end game.

O-Trap;1511015 wrote:

IggyPride00;1510995 wrote:... as they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture or effectively advancing the cause.

What is this bigger picture, at least as you propose it?

Also, specifically what cause are we referring to?

Again, I must ask these. What is this bigger picture, and specifically what cause do you mean?

majorspark;1511123 wrote:If a war has gone so shitty that funding needs cut to stop it congress needs to base that on the moral basis that the war was started, the ineptitude of the CIC's leadership of it, or the blood and treasure it is extracting from the nation. Not some domestic tax cut.

Perhaps I've misunderstood this statement, so please bear with me, but it sounds as though you are espousing the notion that a war already engaged ought to be ceased on the bases of: (a) moral roots of the war, (b) the lack of leadership from the Commander-In-Chief, or (c) the parasitic value, but NOT on the basis of (d) whether or not it is affordable and/or responsible, given the sum total of our domestic financial state.

Have I misunderstood what you meant?

O-Trap;1511125 wrote:Again, I must ask these. What is this bigger picture, and specifically what cause do you mean?

Bottom line, to advance an agenda you need to win elections.

I stand by my assertion that a Majority Leader McConnell with some Rino's you live that aggravate you occasionally is better than a Minority leader McConnell with a pure caucus.

I don't see how shutting down the government when you don't have the numbers to force the President's hand (all the while being blamed by the public) is going to help take back the Senate in 2014.

At least when Newt did it in 95 he had the House and Senate under his control, and had the ability to make life difficult for the President so that he had to negotiate with them. Boehner doesn't have that as a means of giving him even a hint of leverage as everything he does is shut right down in the Senate.

IggyPride00;1511132 wrote:Bottom line, to advance an agenda you need to win elections.

Why ought we advance an agenda? Moreover, if the agenda simply becomes to win the elections, then it would appear that the means become the ends, and the whole process is relatively irrelevant.

IggyPride00;1511132 wrote:I stand by my assertion that a Majority Leader McConnell with some Rino's you live that aggravate you occasionally is better than a Minority leader McConnell with a pure caucus.

On what basis do you assert this?

IggyPride00;1511132 wrote:I don't see how shutting down the government when you don't have the numbers to force the President's hand (all the while being blamed by the public) is going to help take back the Senate in 2014.

Neither do I, though I'd suggest it may not harm those odds as much as you may think, either. The general public seems to be rather fickle and forgetful.

But again, getting elected isn't necessarily fruitful, and I would contend that, as of late, it has distinctively not been so.

IggyPride00;1511132 wrote:At least when Newt did it in 95 he had the House and Senate under his control, and had the ability to make life difficult for the President so that he had to negotiate with them. Boehner doesn't have that as a means of giving him even a hint of leverage as everything he does is shut right down in the Senate.

This is true, but why does it then follow that he should simply submit to that Senate to keep from looking like the bad guy? At the point at which what you do in your job as a Congressman is controlled largely by the desire to get re-elected, you cease to be qualified, because doing the job honestly and well take a back seat to protecting job security by hook or by crook.

Not at all equivalent. Obama is going to sign a bill to continue paying troops. Cutting off funding for troops the nation has committed to war is not what is going on here. With the scenario you mention it would be congress attempting to force the president to surrender to a foreign power by cutting off funding for the war effort on the basis of a domestic dispute. That would be not just be political lunacy but would be putting political interests in front of national interests . And not at all what is happening here.

Your missing the point.

If Pelosi had decided that the War (which Democrats were largely against at that point), or the Tax cuts, or any other nebulous thing were so detrimental to the future of the country (as Republicans feel about Obamacare) that she was refusing to pass any funding for government until that item was repealed there would have been cries of treason.

Had she told Bush that the government was shutting down until the tax cuts were repealed, and only then would Democrats agree to fund government it would have been world war 3 in this country.

They never took things to the brink like that to achieve policy objectives even though they could have.

In that respect we have crossed a new threshold in this country if the new MO is to have to pay a ransom in exchange for government funding, as this has not ever been done before to this level.

IggyPride00;1511134 wrote:If Pelosi had decided that the War (which Democrats were largely against at that point), or the Tax cuts, or any other nebulous thing were so detrimental to the future of the country (as Republicans feel about Obamacare) that she was refusing to pass any funding for government until that item was repealed there would have been cries of treason.

Whether there would have been cries of such does not make it true. It only suggests that people are easily swayed by mob mentality and by competition psychology.

IggyPride00;1511134 wrote:Had she told Bush that the government was shutting down until the tax cuts were repealed, and only then would Democrats agree to fund government it would have been world war 3 in this country.

I'd be interested in hearing a defense for this claim. Why would it have been so different from what we're experiencing right now? And if it would have been so different (assuming you can substantiate that claim), can we really use that analogy as an apples-to-apples comparison to this current situation?

IggyPride00;1511134 wrote:They never took things to the brink like that to achieve policy objectives even though they could have.

Perhaps they should have. Unfortunately, we can't know the geography of the road not taken.

IggyPride00;1511134 wrote:In that respect we have crossed a new threshold in this country if the new MO is to have to pay a ransom in exchange for government funding, as this has not ever been done before to this level.

Perhaps this may end up being a way to force the two sides to sit at the negotiating table and forcing them to get shit done.