|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
[/QUOTE] There are legal precedents as well as statutory laws and constitutional interpretations. [/QUOTE]
I don't believe you. This has never happened before. Think about the options for who can decide during a prioritization event.
Judicial - judges can only decide things which have standing and parties. No standing and no parties here.
Congress - acts of congress only exist when there has been bi-cameral approval (senate+congress+president not vetoing). Thus it can't be congress deciding on the priority of payments.
Executive - it must be here. It is the treasury that actually signs the checks. And I see no reason why either of the other branches would get to review any decisions made here.
|
On October 02 2013 05:46 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote + There are legal precedents as well as statutory laws and constitutional interpretations. I don't believe you. This has never happened before. Think about the options for who can decide during a prioritization event. Judicial - judges can only decide things which have standing and parties. No standing and no parties here. Congress - acts of congress only exist when there has been bi-cameral approval (senate+congress+president not vetoing). Thus it can't be congress deciding on the priority of payments. Executive - it must be here. It is the treasury that actually signs the checks. And I see no reason why either of the other branches would get to review any decisions made here.
Well you can take bankruptcy law (and other applicable statutes) and apply it here to create a priority of claims.
At least one bill has been passed to prioritize paying military personnel (source)
There are interpretations of the 14th amendment (section 4) that allow Obama to, very broadly, depending on the interpretation, to do whatever is necessary to avoid a 'default' including issuing more debt (source and source <-- Obama Bonds).
Personally I like the idea of Obama just saying "fuck you" to Congress, issuing "Obama Bonds" and daring Republicans to impeach him. Best reality TV ever. And I would totally buy Obama Bonds 
|
On October 02 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:46 CannonsNCarriers wrote: There are legal precedents as well as statutory laws and constitutional interpretations. I don't believe you. This has never happened before. Think about the options for who can decide during a prioritization event. Judicial - judges can only decide things which have standing and parties. No standing and no parties here. Congress - acts of congress only exist when there has been bi-cameral approval (senate+congress+president not vetoing). Thus it can't be congress deciding on the priority of payments. Executive - it must be here. It is the treasury that actually signs the checks. And I see no reason why either of the other branches would get to review any decisions made here. Well you can take bankruptcy law (and other applicable statutes) and apply it here to create a priority of claims. At least one bill has been passed to prioritize paying military personnel ( source) There are interpretations of the 14th amendment (section 4) that allow Obama to, very broadly, depending on the interpretation, to do whatever is necessary to avoid a 'default' including issuing more debt ( source and source <-- Obama Bonds). Personally I like the idea of Obama just saying "fuck you" to Congress, issuing "Obama Bonds" and daring Republicans to impeach him. Best reality TV ever. And I would totally buy Obama Bonds
I agree that Obama should just issue the bonds. Mostly because the "prioritization" scenario is so preposterous. You end up in a situation where one man gets unchecked authority over what gets prioritized or not, which the framers struggled mightily to prevent. He ought issue the bonds then call for the lawsuit over their validity immediately.
|
WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) - The White House rejected a Republican plan to reopen portions of the U.S. government on Tuesday as the first shutdown in 17 years closed landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and threw hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work.
The quick dismissal offered no sign that President Barack Obama and Republicans can soon end a standoff over health care that has sidelined everything from trade negotiations to medical research and raised new concerns about Congress's ability to perform its most basic duties. An even bigger battle looms in coming weeks, when Congress must raise the debt limit or risk a U.S. default that could roil global markets.
As Republicans in the House of Representatives huddled to consider their next move, Obama accused them of taking the government hostage in order to sabotage his signature health care law, the most ambitious U.S. social program in five decades.
"They've shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.
Republicans in the House of Representatives view the Affordable Care Act as a dangerous extension of government power and have coupled their efforts to undermine it with continued government funding. The Democratic-controlled Senate has repeatedly rejected those efforts.
Source
|
Government shutdown also affecting the president!
![[image loading]](http://isthegovernmentopen.com/images/obama.gif)
|
On October 02 2013 05:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:20 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 02 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) worked with top congressional Democrats behind the scenes to preserve employer contributions for congressional staff's health care plans even as he decried those subsidies in public, Politico reported Tuesday.
Emails and documents obtained by Politico show Boehner and his aides worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), among others, to find a way to maintain the long-standing employer contributions. Those documents also show that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was aware of the behind-the-scenes talks.
In addition to those efforts, Boehner attempted to arrange a meeting with President Barack Obama to ask for help in securing the subsidies, the documents show. Although Boehner and the president never met to discuss the contributions, a senior Boehner aide was able to meet with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the issue, according to Politico.
A Boehner spokesman denied that the speaker's efforts went against the speaker's public position on Obamacare.
“We always made it clear that the House would not pass any legislative ‘fix,’” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the publication. “As POLITICO has previously reported, Speaker Boehner was aware that Sen. Reid and the White House were discussing this issue. He was always clear, however, that any ‘fix’ would be a Democratic ‘fix.’ His ‘fix’ is repealing” Obamacare.
Reid's communications director Adam Jentleson told Politico that the Nevada Democrat "appreciates Speaker Boehner’s cooperation and tireless efforts to work through this difficult issue." Source Well thats hypocritical. This kind of thing is another reason why no one likes our current congress. Think they can go below 5% approval rating from this mess? How are people surprised by this? Boehner has been trying to stop this crisis from happening since pretty much the beginning. He knows the Republican party cannot win this fight and to save his position he has to shout against democrats once in a while. I see 0 sunrise in him trying to fix things behind the scenes while saying something different to his voters.
If I'm not mistaken, Boehner has the power to stop it if he wants to. He just has to allow a clean CR to go to vote. All the Democrats will go for it, and he only needs a couple of Republicans for it (which he almost certainly has).
Of course, this will probably be seen as a betrayal by the purist tea party. But that doesn't mean the option isn't there.
And don't get the impression that Boehner is wishy-washy or not conservative. He's one of the extremists, but he hasn't been a purist ever since the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown. Ever since then, he's been willing to make deals. This isn't a conflict of ideologies. It's a conflict of dealmakers vs purists.
|
On October 02 2013 08:01 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 02 2013 04:20 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 02 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) worked with top congressional Democrats behind the scenes to preserve employer contributions for congressional staff's health care plans even as he decried those subsidies in public, Politico reported Tuesday.
Emails and documents obtained by Politico show Boehner and his aides worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), among others, to find a way to maintain the long-standing employer contributions. Those documents also show that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was aware of the behind-the-scenes talks.
In addition to those efforts, Boehner attempted to arrange a meeting with President Barack Obama to ask for help in securing the subsidies, the documents show. Although Boehner and the president never met to discuss the contributions, a senior Boehner aide was able to meet with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the issue, according to Politico.
A Boehner spokesman denied that the speaker's efforts went against the speaker's public position on Obamacare.
“We always made it clear that the House would not pass any legislative ‘fix,’” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the publication. “As POLITICO has previously reported, Speaker Boehner was aware that Sen. Reid and the White House were discussing this issue. He was always clear, however, that any ‘fix’ would be a Democratic ‘fix.’ His ‘fix’ is repealing” Obamacare.
Reid's communications director Adam Jentleson told Politico that the Nevada Democrat "appreciates Speaker Boehner’s cooperation and tireless efforts to work through this difficult issue." Source Well thats hypocritical. This kind of thing is another reason why no one likes our current congress. Think they can go below 5% approval rating from this mess? How are people surprised by this? Boehner has been trying to stop this crisis from happening since pretty much the beginning. He knows the Republican party cannot win this fight and to save his position he has to shout against democrats once in a while. I see 0 sunrise in him trying to fix things behind the scenes while saying something different to his voters. If I'm not mistaken, Boehner has the power to stop it if he wants to. He just has to allow a clean CR to go to vote. All the Democrats will go for it, and he only needs a couple of Republicans for it (which he almost certainly has). Of course, this will probably be seen as a betrayal by the purist tea party. But that doesn't mean the option isn't there. And don't get the impression that Boehner is wishy-washy or not conservative. He's one of the extremists, but he hasn't been a purist ever since the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown. Ever since then, he's been willing to make deals. This isn't a conflict of ideologies. It's a conflict of dealmakers vs purists.
Yes he can allow the clean CR to go to vote but if he does so then he will lose his re-election and his speaker position to the tea-party. I could well be wrong in this but I thought that was the main crux f his position, The willingness to make deals against the desire for hardline confrontation of his voters.
|
Boehner is toast regardless of how this turns out. If republicans win, the Tea Party will grow stronger and move to usurp Boehner in the semi-near future. If this turns into a political disaster for republicans, Boehner will be the fall guy.
|
On October 02 2013 08:18 xDaunt wrote:
Boehner is toast regardless of how this turns out. If republicans win, the Tea Party will grow stronger and move to usurp Boehner in the semi-near future. If this turns into a political disaster for republicans, Boehner will be the fall guy.
Yea, that's the thing. I don't see any way Boehner can come out of this without getting charred.
In which case, I'm not exactly sure what he's waiting for.
|
Im not 100% versed on the workings of Congress. I assume the Democrats cannot offer a bill up for vote in the House themselves and see if any Republicans are willing to pass the clean CR?
|
On October 02 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:
Im not 100% versed on the workings of Congress. I assume the Democrats cannot offer a bill up for vote in the House themselves and see if any Republicans are willing to pass the clean CR?
Democrats want to pass a clean CR with no conditions to take out the PPACA, Republicans want to pass a CR that repeals the PPACA. Both sides are not negotiating until either side gets what it wants.
Basically, one side wants the status quo, the other side wants to take out the funding for PPACA. There is no middle ground as of now, but there are discussions on whether some Republicans will break from the majority of the House to pass a continuing clean CR.
|
On October 02 2013 08:47 Phelix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:
Im not 100% versed on the workings of Congress. I assume the Democrats cannot offer a bill up for vote in the House themselves and see if any Republicans are willing to pass the clean CR? Democrats want to pass a clean CR with no conditions to take out the PPACA, Republicans want to pass a CR that repeals the PPACA. Both sides are not negotiating until either side gets what it wants. Basically, one side wants the status quo, the other side wants to take out the funding for PPACA. There is no middle ground as of now, but there are discussions on whether some Republicans will break from the majority of the House to pass a continuing clean CR.
Thanks for totally not answer the question...
|
On October 02 2013 08:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:47 Phelix wrote:On October 02 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:
Im not 100% versed on the workings of Congress. I assume the Democrats cannot offer a bill up for vote in the House themselves and see if any Republicans are willing to pass the clean CR? Democrats want to pass a clean CR with no conditions to take out the PPACA, Republicans want to pass a CR that repeals the PPACA. Both sides are not negotiating until either side gets what it wants. Basically, one side wants the status quo, the other side wants to take out the funding for PPACA. There is no middle ground as of now, but there are discussions on whether some Republicans will break from the majority of the House to pass a continuing clean CR. Thanks for totally not answer the question...
The answer is no, Democrats in the House cannot bring up a bill for a vote. If they could, it would've been done already.
|
WASHINGTON -- If and when the federal government reopens for business, congressional lawmakers will have to decide whether or not to retroactively pay federal workers for the time they were out of work. So far, Republicans appear split on the question of back pay for furloughed civil servants -- even though members of Congress are guaranteed to get paid regardless.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would support such a measure. "They're being furloughed for no fault of their own, and this is very poor policy," she said.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed. "Oh, of course," he said when asked by HuffPost if he would support back pay legislation. "Why penalize these good people for our malfeasance?"
The Arizona Republican even predicted that it wouldn't be too difficult to get a bill retroactively paying federal workers through Congress.
But some of McCain's colleagues weren't so sure federal workers should be made whole for their lost time.
"I think it's way too early to even consider that, but again we're $7 trillion more in the hole now than we were [in 1995-1996]," said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). "It makes it that much more difficult."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also raised the issue of the national debt, signaling what might prevent many Republicans from getting on board.
"I think there would be less chance of that now considering the great big budget deficit we have now," Grassley said. "We're in a much worse situation."
So how would he vote if a measure were brought to floor to back pay federal employees?
"I would not make a judgment at this point," Grassley responded.
Source
|
On October 02 2013 09:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- If and when the federal government reopens for business, congressional lawmakers will have to decide whether or not to retroactively pay federal workers for the time they were out of work. So far, Republicans appear split on the question of back pay for furloughed civil servants -- even though members of Congress are guaranteed to get paid regardless.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would support such a measure. "They're being furloughed for no fault of their own, and this is very poor policy," she said.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed. "Oh, of course," he said when asked by HuffPost if he would support back pay legislation. "Why penalize these good people for our malfeasance?"
The Arizona Republican even predicted that it wouldn't be too difficult to get a bill retroactively paying federal workers through Congress.
But some of McCain's colleagues weren't so sure federal workers should be made whole for their lost time.
"I think it's way too early to even consider that, but again we're $7 trillion more in the hole now than we were [in 1995-1996]," said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). "It makes it that much more difficult."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also raised the issue of the national debt, signaling what might prevent many Republicans from getting on board.
"I think there would be less chance of that now considering the great big budget deficit we have now," Grassley said. "We're in a much worse situation."
So how would he vote if a measure were brought to floor to back pay federal employees?
"I would not make a judgment at this point," Grassley responded. Source
Keep digging Republicans. You can still see the sunlight. We have to go deeper!
On October 02 2013 08:58 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 02 2013 08:47 Phelix wrote:On October 02 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:
Im not 100% versed on the workings of Congress. I assume the Democrats cannot offer a bill up for vote in the House themselves and see if any Republicans are willing to pass the clean CR? Democrats want to pass a clean CR with no conditions to take out the PPACA, Republicans want to pass a CR that repeals the PPACA. Both sides are not negotiating until either side gets what it wants. Basically, one side wants the status quo, the other side wants to take out the funding for PPACA. There is no middle ground as of now, but there are discussions on whether some Republicans will break from the majority of the House to pass a continuing clean CR. Thanks for totally not answer the question... The answer is no, Democrats in the House cannot bring up a bill for a vote. If they could, it would've been done already.
Thanks, wasn't entirely sure of it
|
|
|
House Republicans on Tuesday evening failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to pass a series of three partial government finding bills.
The three bills -- to fund veterans benefits, national parks and the District of Columbia -- were designed to increase pressure on Senate Democrats to resolve the government shutdown by making them take politically uncomfortable votes against funding popular government services.
The failure of the three bills -- a key portion of the House GOP's government shutdown strategy that emerged earlier in the day Tuesday -- adds additional uncertainty to a way out of the current impasse.
The vote on the veterans affairs bill was 264 to 164, on the District of Columbia bill was 265 to 163, and on the national parks and museums bill was 252 to 176. All three proposals needed a two thirds majority of the chamber to pass.
The failure of the three measures is an ironic twist in Congress's struggle with funding the government. The votes were designed as a trap for Democrats. House Republicans decided in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday afternoon that they would try to fund the government through piecemeal continuing resolutions.
After the vote, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told TPM that House GOP leadership knew the bills were going to fail.
Source
|
On October 02 2013 09:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 09:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- If and when the federal government reopens for business, congressional lawmakers will have to decide whether or not to retroactively pay federal workers for the time they were out of work. So far, Republicans appear split on the question of back pay for furloughed civil servants -- even though members of Congress are guaranteed to get paid regardless.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would support such a measure. "They're being furloughed for no fault of their own, and this is very poor policy," she said.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed. "Oh, of course," he said when asked by HuffPost if he would support back pay legislation. "Why penalize these good people for our malfeasance?"
The Arizona Republican even predicted that it wouldn't be too difficult to get a bill retroactively paying federal workers through Congress.
But some of McCain's colleagues weren't so sure federal workers should be made whole for their lost time.
"I think it's way too early to even consider that, but again we're $7 trillion more in the hole now than we were [in 1995-1996]," said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). "It makes it that much more difficult."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also raised the issue of the national debt, signaling what might prevent many Republicans from getting on board.
"I think there would be less chance of that now considering the great big budget deficit we have now," Grassley said. "We're in a much worse situation."
So how would he vote if a measure were brought to floor to back pay federal employees?
"I would not make a judgment at this point," Grassley responded. Source Keep digging Republicans. You can still see the sunlight. We have to go deeper! Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:58 Adila wrote:On October 02 2013 08:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 02 2013 08:47 Phelix wrote:On October 02 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:
Im not 100% versed on the workings of Congress. I assume the Democrats cannot offer a bill up for vote in the House themselves and see if any Republicans are willing to pass the clean CR? Democrats want to pass a clean CR with no conditions to take out the PPACA, Republicans want to pass a CR that repeals the PPACA. Both sides are not negotiating until either side gets what it wants. Basically, one side wants the status quo, the other side wants to take out the funding for PPACA. There is no middle ground as of now, but there are discussions on whether some Republicans will break from the majority of the House to pass a continuing clean CR. Thanks for totally not answer the question... The answer is no, Democrats in the House cannot bring up a bill for a vote. If they could, it would've been done already. Thanks, wasn't entirely sure of it
A more complex answer is that the speaker has 100% control over what goes up for a vote in the House. However there is a measure that is almost never done that says if a majority (218) members vote to bring something to a vote then that measure will be voted on. I actually don't understand all the specifics of how it would work from a technical perspective because I cant recall it being used because it would require part of the majority to go against there speaker which would likely get them severely punished but I remember it being attempted (and failed) a few times by minorities over the years.
|
|
|
On October 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +House Republicans on Tuesday evening failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to pass a series of three partial government finding bills.
The three bills -- to fund veterans benefits, national parks and the District of Columbia -- were designed to increase pressure on Senate Democrats to resolve the government shutdown by making them take politically uncomfortable votes against funding popular government services.
The failure of the three bills -- a key portion of the House GOP's government shutdown strategy that emerged earlier in the day Tuesday -- adds additional uncertainty to a way out of the current impasse.
The vote on the veterans affairs bill was 264 to 164, on the District of Columbia bill was 265 to 163, and on the national parks and museums bill was 252 to 176. All three proposals needed a two thirds majority of the chamber to pass.
The failure of the three measures is an ironic twist in Congress's struggle with funding the government. The votes were designed as a trap for Democrats. House Republicans decided in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday afternoon that they would try to fund the government through piecemeal continuing resolutions.
After the vote, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told TPM that House GOP leadership knew the bills were going to fail. Source
I dont see the Democrats accepting anything less then a full government funding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
