Thread: Will the GOP Force a Govt Shutdown and/or Debt Default?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Surprised you haven't squeezed Benghazi into this yet, after all they have.

I'm shocked he made it through without talking about the $300 billion apiece spent each week on ACORN, Planned Parenthood, PBS and repairing the damage to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan after Obama demanded it be sailed up I-70 to deliver golf balls!

There's hope for him yet.

the white house and senate are calling boehner's bluff.

Moments after House Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday there aren't enough votes in the House for a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, Sen. Chuck Schumer offered him a "friendly challenge."


"Put it on the floor Monday or Tuesday," the New York Democrat said, appearing on ABC's "This Week," just after Boehner. "I would bet there are the votes to pass it. We have just about every Democrat, 21 Republicans have publicly said they would. There are many more Republicans who have said that they privately would."

"So, Speaker Boehner, just vote," Schumer added. "Put it on the floor and let's see if you're right."

Schumer dares Boehner to bring clean CR to House floor - POLITICO.com

why is boehner afraid to let elected representatives vote?

what is about democracy that this current crop of repubicans/t-hadists find so objectionable?

Put the individual mandate up for a vote and the exemption for congress too. But they won't because they know both votes would go down in flames so they are holding the whole country hostage. Craven anarchists.

Originally Posted by raycarey

the white house and senate are calling boehner's bluff.

Moments after House Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday there aren't enough votes in the House for a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, Sen. Chuck Schumer offered him a "friendly challenge."


"Put it on the floor Monday or Tuesday," the New York Democrat said, appearing on ABC's "This Week," just after Boehner. "I would bet there are the votes to pass it. We have just about every Democrat, 21 Republicans have publicly said they would. There are many more Republicans who have said that they privately would."

"So, Speaker Boehner, just vote," Schumer added. "Put it on the floor and let's see if you're right."

Schumer dares Boehner to bring clean CR to House floor - POLITICO.com

why is boehner afraid to let elected representatives vote?

what is about democracy that this current crop of repubicans/t-hadists find so objectionable?

Everyone needs to call out House Speaker John Boehner for his blatant lie.



"There are not the votes in the House to pass a clean C.R.," John Boehner said yesterday on ABC News.

Bullshit Boehner! We only need 17 House Republicans to vote for a clean bill for it to pass. As of today there are 22 who have confirmed they're ready to pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached.

Here's A Tally Of Which House Republicans Are Ready To Fund The Government, No Strings Attached

Rep. Pat Meehan (R-Pa.): “At this point, I believe it’s time for the House to vote for a clean, short-term funding bill to bring the Senate to the table and negotiate a responsible compromise.” [Press Release, 10/1/13]
Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.): “Time for a clean [continuing resolution].” [Official Twitter, 10/1/13]
Rep. Jon Runyan (R-N.J.): “Enough is enough. Put a clean [continuing resolution] on the floor and let’s get on with the business we were sent to do." [Burlington County Times, 10/1/13]
Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.): A Fitzpatrick aide tells the Philadelphia Inquirer the congressman would support a clean funding bill if it came up for a vote. [Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/1/13]
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.): Barletta said he would "absolutely" vote for a clean bill in order to avert a shut down of the government. [Bethlehem Morning Call, 10/1/13]
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.): King thinks House Republicans would prefer to avoid a shutdown and said he will only vote for a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, according to the National Review Online. [NRO, 9/30/13]
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.): The California Republican told The Huffington Post he would ultimately support a clean continuing resolution. [Tweet by The Huffington Post's Sabrina Siddiqui, 9/30/13]
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.): “I'm prepared to vote for a clean [continuing resolution].” [The Huffington Post, 9/29/13]
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.): A Wolf aide told The Hill that he agrees with fellow Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell (R) that it's time for a clean continuing resolution. [The Hill, 10/1/13]
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.): A Grimm aide told The Huffington Post that the congressman supports a clean continuing resolution. [10/1/13].
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.): A local news anchor in Minnesota tweeted that Paulsen told him he would vote for a clean resolution if given the chance. [Blake McCoy Tweet, 10/1/13]
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.): A constituent of Wittman's sent The Huffington Post an email she got from the congressman indicating he would vote for a clean funding bill but hasn't had "an opportunity to do so at this point." [10/1/13]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.): LoBiondo told The Press of Atlantic City he'll support "whatever gets a successful conclusion" to the shutdown and a clean funding bill "is one of those options." [The Press of Atlantic City, 10/1/13]
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.): Forbes told The Virginian-Pilot that he supports the six-week clean funding bill that passed in the Senate. [The Virginian-Pilot, 10/2/13]
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.): The congressman issued a statement saying he would "vote in favor of a so-called clean budget bill." [Office of Rep. Jim Gerlach, 10/2/13].
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.): Lance's chief of staff confirmed to The Huffington Post that he told a constituent on Wednesday that Lance has voted for clean government funding bills in the past "and would not oppose doing so again should one be brought to the floor." [10/2/13]
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho): Simpson told a Roll Call reporter Tuesday night, "I'd vote for a clean CR because I don't think this is a strategy that works." [Daniel Newhauser Tweet, 10/1/13]
Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.): Young told Tampa Bay Times reporter Alex Leary that he's ready to vote for a clean funding bill. "The politics should be over," he said. "It's time to legislate." [Alex Leary Tweet, 10/2/13]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.): The congressman told Miami Herald reporter Marc Caputo that he would vote for a clean funding bill, provided it has the same funding levels contained in the Senate-passed bill. [The Miami Herald, 10/2/13]
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.): "I would take a clean (continuing resolution)." [Observer-Dispatch, 10/2/13]
Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.): Asked on Twitter if he would support a clean funding bill if it came up for a vote, Griffin tweeted, "sure. Ive already said i would support." [Official Twitter, 10/2/13].
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska): Shannyn Moore, a radio show host and known blogger in Alaska, says an aide in Young's office told her the congressman would vote for a clean CR. One of Young's constituents also told HuffPost that aides in the congressman's D.C. and Juneau offices both said he would support a clean CR. Young's office did not respond to a request for comment from HuffPost. [Shannyn Moore tweet, 10/4/13]
Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.): A Davis constituent tells The Huffington Post that a Davis aide told him Wednesday, "Congressman Davis is prepared to vote 'yes' on a clean CR." Asked for comment, Davis spokesman Andrew Flach told HuffPost that Davis isn't "going to speculate" on what bills may come up in the House and "will continue to vote for proposals brought to the floor that will fund the federal government." [10/2/2013]

The Federal Government remains shut because House Speaker John Boehner refuses to allow the House to vote on a clean CR bill.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

The Federal Government remains shut because House Speaker John Boehner refuses to allow the House to vote on a clean CR bill.

next week, no matter what the question is, the WH and harry reid's office should answer: "speaker boehner needs to bring this vote to the floor".

he is the spokesperson for the Tea Party, what do you expect ? probably paid consequently by those Tea Party billionaires

^Typical trash boontard.

The US is now effectively a one party state, all hail freedom and democracy. The American people have no choice, except between slow death and suicide. What on earth happened to a once great nation? I'd much rather live in a one party state like China than the US these days, much much rather. Most of that is the fault of the contemptible neo-'republicans', and their teabag retards.

The speaker's assessment that he did not have the votes to pass a clean budget bill was contradicted by members of both parties. "I'm positive that a clean C.R. would pass," said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York.

"If it went on the floor tomorrow, I could see anywhere from 50 to 75 Republicans voting for it," he added. "And if it were a secret ballot, 150."

Pussies

What a truly contemptible political party- amazingly, I backed these thugs and assholes until the first dubya administration. Feel bad about that now.

So what does america have to do to get the lying, scheming, conniving weasel Boehner back for a house vote?

Has he really full control or can he be slapped around a bit to make him burst into tears, which on past experience shouldn't prove too difficult

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

So what does america have to do to get the lying, scheming, conniving weasel Boehner back for a house vote?

public pressure.

unrelenting public pressure.

it's the only way boehner will bring a vote on the CR to the floor...because once he does it, he's done as speaker....unless of course he makes a deal with the dems that they'll vote for him as speaker if he brings the vote to the floor.

Originally Posted by sabang

I'd much rather live in a one party state like China than the US these days, much much rather.

Sentiment understood, but be careful what you wish for.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

So what does america have to do to get the lying, scheming, conniving weasel Boehner back for a house vote?

Has he really full control or can he be slapped around a bit to make him burst into tears, which on past experience shouldn't prove too difficult

IMO, pressure from the big boys who run the country--primarily the financial and banking institutions, who also have--and represent--international interests in finance and banking.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by sabang

I'd much rather live in a one party state like China than the US these days, much much rather.

Sentiment understood, but be careful what you wish for.

Indeed.

Appears k. sabang has well and truly melted down. Poor fella doesn't understand the Democratic Process. Three branches of government w/no King.

Meanwhile, as it turns out, the White House Blinks, Will Negotiate On Debt Ceiling After All. k. sabang must not be a very good poker player.

"After weeks of insisting it won’t negotiate on either the budget or the debt ceiling, a top White House adviser said this morning that Barack Obama would sign a short-term lift in the latter to gain more time for a longer-term agreement."

Remember, Obama was supposed to be overseas on his Asia trip this week. He decided to send Sec. Kerry in his place over the weekend, even as he was insisting that he wasn't going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. Why stay in the U.S. if he wasn't going to negotiate? Answer: he'll negotiate & it's about time.


Obama, Senate Dems hope to break logjam with debt ceiling bill - The Washington Post

Unfortunately the democratic process died long ago when large corporations realised how much leverage they could exert over politicians with donations and more. Until lobbying is outlawed i fear we will witness little change in the political process.

The elected are after all not particularly working for the citizens of their country but for themselves and their funders. A 2 party state is a closed shop and of course those on either side have no wish to alter the status quo, certainly the people will need to display a good deal more dissention before they do. It is unlikely to happen in the US because of the nationalistic nonsense there.

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Why stay in the U.S. if he wasn't going to negotiate?

Maybe because he is the POTUS and the Country he is supposedly running is falling apart and that is probably where he should be. IMO the asshole should have to stay in the Country at all times not be jetsetting around the world and taking fucking vacations every other week. The country of my birth has turned into a parody FFS!

^ fail

Who vacationed more, Bush or Obama?

By Louis Jacobson
Published on Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 at 11:16 a.m.
Related rulings:

Says President Barack Obama "has taken 92 days of vacation since he was sworn in," compared to 367 for President George W. Bush at the same point in his presidency.

Al Sharpton, Friday, August 9th, 2013.
Ruling: Mostly True | Details
Share this article:




President Barack Obama golfs at the Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown, Mass., Aug. 12, 2013.



It’s an old tradition in American politics -- taking potshots at the president for his vacation choices.
As the Obamas took off for Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, critics attacked their vacation as too lavish. But one of the Obamas’ defenders was the Rev. Al Sharpton, who hosts a show on MSNBC.
Sharpton said Obama "has taken 92 days of vacation since he was sworn in. How many did President (George W.) Bush take by the same point in his presidency? Three hundred and sixty seven. Yes, more than a full year of vacation."
Was Sharpton right? Our fact-check looked at data compiled by CBS News reporter Mark Knoller, the acknowledged authority on how presidents spend their days in office. We also noted different patterns in how Bush and Obama vactioned. We rated Sharpton’s statement Mostly True. Read our fact-check for complete details.

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

Attention will turn more sharply this week in the direction of the debt ceiling and the question of a possible default. We’re just 10 days away from D-Day, and since default is a much bigger deal than a shutdown, we’re going to have a week of cable debates about who’ll be to blame if the country defaults. It is with that in mind that offer you three arguments you’re sure to hear Republicans make. They’re all foolish or false or both, so clip this list and tape it to your refrigerator. The roof is finally starting to fall in on these serial liars, and I want you to be part of the growing army of Americans that knows a lie when it hears one.

1. A default wouldn’t really be that bad.

We haven’t heard this very much yet, but I expect it will start getting a stern workout this week. It was a heavy talking point back in 2011.
I remember reading, back in the summer, how Republicans had decided that they weren’t going to fight too much over a possible government shutdown, as they knew it would make them unpopular, and they were going to save their powder for a debt-limit battle. Of course, that was then. They obviously changed strategies and decided to fight on both, because when it comes to fighting with Obama they’re just lab monkeys with cocaine, and because Ted Cruz made them. But I remember thinking, How in God’s green acres did they settle on that strategy? I was aghast.
While a shutdown is terrible, it’s not in the same solar system of disaster as a default. But the substance meant nothing at all to them. What mattered was that a shutdown is comparatively easy for the public to grasp, while the debt-limit topic is confusing. So the idea that they might be jeopardizing the national and world economies didn’t mean a thing to them during their summer strategy sessions. The debt fight provided the better opportunity for them to confuse the public and disguise their game of Russian roulette over settled law (Obamacare), and it polled better.
The Republicans’ insouciant stance on the substance of the thing goes back to 2011. The journalist Robert Draper reported an amusing-horrifying episode in his book on the 2010 class, Do Not Ask What Good We Do. The party leadership brought in Republican economists to tell them how awful a default would be. The government would be able to pay only about half its bills, federal prisons would be shut down, interest rates would shoot through the roof. They were largely unmoved, Draper wrote.
The same thing is happening now. They just don’t believe the doomsayers. It’s liberal propaganda, just like all that “hooey” that gets talked about the polar ice cap melting. So you’re going to start hearing this idiocy again. Be forearmed.

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.
It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.
But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.
But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.

3. The Democrats won’t compromise, wah wah wah!

huge lie. Here’s a fact I’d bet no more than 2 percent of the American public knows: that “clean” continuing resolution the Senate passed, with Democrats backing it and Republicans opposing it? That CR carried the levels of funding for government agencies demanded by Republicans, not Democrats.
That’s right. The Senate CR funds the government in the coming weeks at a level of $988 billion. The Democrats wanted $1.058 billion. But they passed a bill at Republican levels. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said late last week: “My caucus really didn’t like that. We took a real hit…So that’s one of the largest compromises since I’ve been in Congress.”
Now why did they pass a bill at the GOP’s preferred levels? Because, Reid said late last week, he had assurances from Boehner that the House speaker wouldn’t attach demands to the Senate CR if Reid brought it in at $988 billion. So this whole thing started with a significant Democratic compromise. But once the Republicans decided that they were going to use both the shutdown and the debt ceiling to try to defund and/or delay Obamacare, they couldn’t even vote for a bill that gave them a major fiscal victory. That’s how dug in and crazy they are.

So don’t be fooled. The GOP position is dishonest and destructive beyond words. I’d still bet that complete disaster will be averted, but with this bunch, you never quite know. People who’ve persuaded themselves that default won’t have serious ramifications are people capable of doing, and certainly of saying, anything.


Lying and deceiving the American public has become second nature to this crew. The sooner they are voted out of office the better and most Americans are finally waking up to the fact.


Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You

Back on Topic.

Obama doesn't have to worry about whether the GOP is going to force his hand - China will though:



Get your fiscal house in order: China warns US as superpower expresses concern for $1.3tn of investments

Get your fiscal house in order: China warns US as superpower expresses concern for $1.3tn of investments - Americas - World - The Independent

This is what happens when you take an unseasoned Community 'Organizer' with delusions of power and put him in Big White.

Between furloughs, car chases, and a self-immolation, the residents of Washington, DC, aren’t having a great October. But by Friday of this week, things could get even worse — and not because of the looming debt crisis.
On October 11th, a group of right-wing truckers is planning to drive to DC to shut down the major commuter highway that circles the city. They’ll continue to block traffic, they say, until they see the arrest of elected officials who have “violated their oath of office.”
Organizers of the event, which is titled “Truckers Ride for the Constitution,” say they are fed up with a variety of headaches caused by the government: Fuel efficiency standards enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency, Obamacare, state and local laws over idling their trucks, and “insurance companies purportedly requiring technological updates,” according to US News and World Report.
They say that to demonstrate against violations of the constitution, they plan to circle interstate 495 — known widely as the beltway — and not allow through any traffic. If police try to stop them, they’ll park their trucks right on the highway.
Originally, reports from US News and World Report indicated the truckers were looking to impeach President Obama. But Earl Conlon, an organizer of the event, told US News, “We’re not asking for impeachment, we’re asking for the arrest of everyone in government who has violated their oath of office.” These include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), both for purportedly arming al Qaeda linked Syrian rebels. But while it might seem very US-specific, even some Canadian truckers might join in.
It was not immediately clear how truckers would go from circling the highway around DC to actually arresting elected representatives.
But, if the protest grows large enough, it could spell even more trouble for DC: The trucker event is slated to go on for three days, and will coincide with the weekend of the previously-planned Million Vet March, where veterans can express their outrage over the government shutdown.

Link

Originally Posted by Humbert

A default wouldn’t really be that bad.

Take it from a 20+ year veteran of the investment business- a US government debt default would be absolutely catastrophic. The whole of investment mathematics is based on the 1 year US T-Bill being the risk free investment offering the risk free rate of return.