Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

If this really happens, it will be fun to watch the Tea Partiers answer questions about the military being paid should it go on long enough.

"You said shut it down, didn't you?"

"Well yes."

"So you're in favor of our troops going unpaid?"

"Well no--"

"But you said shut it down. Clearly you felt that soldiers not being paid was worth the price of making your point."

"We only wanted to stop the bad spending!"

"But you stopped all spending, not just the "bad spending." Sergeant Rakles would like to know if it was worth it."

"Uhm....uh....support our troops....uhm.....national security is our top priority....er....taxes are bad....uh....gosh, this politics thing is harder than it seemed like it would be in my 7th Grade Social Studies class."

[alway]

Yep, seems troop payment may be delayed. To copypaste the headline from MSNBC's article:
White House says shutdown will delay pay to troops

But they already have acknowledged that U.S. military troops — including those in war zones — would receive one week's pay instead of two in their next paycheck if the government were to close.
Military personnel at home and abroad would continue to earn pay, but they wouldn't get paychecks until there was a budget agreement and government operations resumed.

[olemars]

That's going to suck for deployed soldiers' families.

[lemon10]

Question: Can anyone here give a single example of the republican party (senate+house+fox news) supporting a bill or not actively opposing something that was anti-corporation or anti-rich people in the last 10 years?
Because I can't think of a single example.

(Yes, this is way off topic, but it's a question I kinda want answered, and this is the most on topic place to put it).

[Lagslayer]

That's like asking if the democrats have supported an anti-minority or anti-union bill. That's what the party is about, or at least claims to be and tries to appear so. This goes for both parties.

[Nikov]

Question: Can anyone here give a single example of the republican party (senate+house+fox news) supporting a bill or not actively opposing something that was anti-corporation or anti-rich people in the last 10 years?
Because I can't think of a single example.

(Yes, this is way off topic, but it's a question I kinda want answered, and this is the most on topic place to put it).

Bush tried, guess how it turned out?

[Vector]

There is an obvious slant on this and I'm sure it's leaving out a lot, but I found this article kind of interesting:

Budget issues.

[Phmcw]

Question: Can anyone here give a single example of the republican party (senate+house+fox news) supporting a bill or not actively opposing something that was anti-corporation or anti-rich people in the last 10 years?
Because I can't think of a single example.

(Yes, this is way off topic, but it's a question I kinda want answered, and this is the most on topic place to put it).

Bush tried, guess how it turned out?

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,''

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package.

This could be relevant, but it's far from granted : it's a change of the regulation of these company, but given that their president gave complete approvals... I don't know, it would depend a lot of the fine-prints, such as who is in charge, will the regulation get stricter... actually just check the bills passed by our politicians (in Belgium), you'll have a textbook example of how to make a project look good and to screw people regardless. And this bill look just like it.

[lemon10]

Question: Can anyone here give a single example of the republican party (senate+house+fox news) supporting a bill or not actively opposing something that was anti-corporation or anti-rich people in the last 10 years?
Because I can't think of a single example.

(Yes, this is way off topic, but it's a question I kinda want answered, and this is the most on topic place to put it).

Bush tried, guess how it turned out?

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,''

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package.

This could be relevant, but it's far from granted : it's a change of the regulation of these company, but given that their president gave complete approvals... I don't know, it would depend a lot of the fine-prints, such as who is in charge, will the regulation get stricter... actually just check the bills passed by our politicians (in Belgium), you'll have a textbook example of how to make a project look good and to screw people regardless. And this bill look just like it.

Their wasn't ever any bill. It never got to the house/senate, so it doesn't really count.

[Kogut]

---ignore this---

[darkrider2]

The way I see it, the republicans/tea partiers are basically holding the government hostage.

Saying, either approve our budget, or we shut down the government.

Hurt the economy approving our agenda, or hurt the economy not approving it.

[Criptfeind]

Anyone remember when it looked like the U.S might have a functioning political system within our life time? Back when the Tea party was a bad joke? When did things go so wrong?

[Puzzlemaker]

On one hand, the deficit we are in is... just, horrible and really, really needs to be fixed.  On the other hand...

Bleh, both sides are right, both sides are wrong. 

[Leafsnail]

The best way to solve the deficit is clearly to massively raise unemployment in the middle of an economically unstable time.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

If this really happens, it will be fun to watch the Tea Partiers answer questions about the military being paid should it go on long enough.

"You said shut it down, didn't you?"

"Well yes."

"So you're in favor of our troops going unpaid?"

"Well no--"

"But you said shut it down. Clearly you felt that soldiers not being paid was worth the price of making your point."

"We only wanted to stop the bad spending!"

"But you stopped all spending, not just the "bad spending." Sergeant Rakles would like to know if it was worth it."

"Uhm....uh....support our troops....uhm.....national security is our top priority....er....taxes are bad....uh....gosh, this politics thing is harder than it seemed like it would be in my 7th Grade Social Studies class."

UMMMM NENJIN, hate to burst your idealogical bubble, but OBAMA is threatening to not pay the soldiers.  No one else.  It is his pettiness that underlays that.  Normally, in a shutdown, the military does still get paid.  Just saying.

The way I see this, and I am sure I will be the most unpopular person for saying it, is that the Democrats and Obama have a gun to the head of America demanding money for their cronies (GM SEIU, AFL-CIO, etc etc etc etc etc ect) like some back alley thug and the Republicans care simplying trying to keep us all from being robbed.  Yeah, I know, that doesnt fit with the DF Forums acceptable narrative and tone.


Also, about Bush and fannie mae and Freddie mac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs  (listen closely at the 7:40 mark)    damn that Bush and Deregulation.....oh, wait, what?!

Disclaimer:  I am a proud member of the Dallas Tea Party, started by non-white people, imaging that!