GOP continues the march to self-destruction

[callmeslick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/nyreg ... l?src=recg

this one will be remembered, and not fondly, by voters up and down the MidAtlantic coast, including states like Virginia, Pennsylvania(no coast but lots
of shore homeowners and vacationers), Delaware and others which have substantial Republican representation. What was Boehner thinking on this?

[Tunnelcat]

Boehner's not a happy camper. He knows he's been played.

http://news.yahoo.com/john-boehner-told ... 32376.html

[callmeslick]

testy, testy, testy.....

[woodchip]

Too bad slick you didn't mention all the pork that senators like Schummer tried to stuff the bill with pork:

"On Friday, the U.S. Senate passed a $60.4 billion bill that contains expenditures for areas that were unaffected by the storm, including $2 million roof repairs for Smithsonian Institution museums, $150 million for Alaskan fisheries disasters, and $58 million in taxpayer dollars to plant trees on private property in areas where Sandy never touched down."

"Particularly troubling, says Mr. Meyer, is the fact that 85% of the bill’s allocations do not kick in until after 2014. “That’s not immediate relief,” says Meyer."

A apt quote from a certain young black senator to a mostly black Katrina victims speech:

"Where's yo dollah"

[snoopy]

Our government is a reflection of the American people.

There's a very large portion of the populace that has no concept of fiscal responsibility. All they care about is getting as big of a piece of the pie as they can while it lasts.

I find it ironic that the GOP is marching toward self-destruction (which, by the way, I do agree with) because they are doing what they can to try to end the nation's march toward insolvency (and, in my opinion, destruction).

[Tunnelcat]

I must be an exception. I keep well within my finances, even though I have multiple credit cards.

[callmeslick]

hell, now they have the big guy pissed off:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... &gt1=43001


scariest note in here for the GOP was Rep. King from NY calling for donors to stop giving to the party. His state(which includes Wall Street) contains some of the deepest, and longest-standing pockets in the GOP arsenal. Sure, a lot of Southern money has come in lately, but watch that dry up after a few more beatdowns at the polls.
Not good news for the party that Christie is pissed, and specifically pissed at Boehner. This is going to be shaping up as a first rate slugfest and, for those of us who remember the GOP our fathers belonged to, about freaking time!

[vision]

Just when I thought the GOP couldn't get more dysfunctional. How quickly they forgot about November. This is top notch entertainment right here.

[callmeslick]

was just exchanging the same thought, vision, with a politically active old-school Republican friend. He is both licking his chops and getting the popcorn ready while we watch the GOP 'leaders' go at one another. The bloodletting should reach the spectacular stage by around March, when the real bargaining has to begin on sequestration, taxation and long-term deficit reduction plans, along with Obama's push for infrastructure spending(which, I might add, has large-scale public support).

[Tunnelcat]

It's actually a shame the Republicans have sunk to this point. But with the tea party joining ranks, it was inevitable.

[Ferno]

Why do I get the sense that this will play out similar to the fallout from Katrina.

[callmeslick]

actually, Fermo,it's far worse. In Katrina, money(62 billion) was allocated within 7 or 8 days by Congress. Likewise, after virtually all natural disasters.
This has been over 60 days, and all the GOP led Congress will commit to is $9 billion, with another 51 maybe in a few weeks. Political suicide, because the Dems will be able to go to places like the Carolinas, Florida, the Gulf Coast, etc and say, "they did it to these people, are you next?"

[Ferno]

that's so ★■◆●ing retarded.

[Will Robinson]

Another difference between the two is the way the failures of FEMA are similar yet not attributed to the President in one of the two cases.
But as you noted the Repubs managed to step up to the plate and provide a viable scapegoat. They are really good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Tunnelcat]

That's one thing the Dems have never done, regicide. But hoo boy, the Republicans have continually resorted to the "Off with his head!" solution when things go south. Glad I'm not John of Orange.

http://theweek.com/article/index/238252 ... f-regicide

[CUDA]

Ya now tell the truth on the Sandy bill and tell them why.

there IS a bill proposed and it was in the Senate. But the Senate had so much pork in the bill there was no way to get it passed.

The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms.

Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.
$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.

and as we all know all these thing were directly a result of hurricane Sandy. because we all know Hurricane sandy was SOOOOO big it stretched all the way from Alaska to Cuba.

[vision]

If you paid attention you would know all that pork was taken out of the bill before it went to the house and it was still voted down.

[callmeslick]

Ya now tell the truth on the Sandy bill and tell them why.

there IS a bill proposed and it was in the Senate. But the Senate had so much pork in the bill there was no way to get it passed.

but there was a bill in the House with no such additions, and it wasn't brought to a vote. Had it been, the add-ons would have been dropped in conference and the money would have been approved.

[woodchip]

If you paid attention you would know all that pork was taken out of the bill before it went to the house and it was still voted down.

No it wasn't:

"Councilman Dan Halloran did not sign on and instead sent a letter of his own to Mr. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in which his appreciation that the House delayed the Sandy package that was approved by the Senate because it contained too much unrelated pork and his desire for Congress to pass a more “responsible” bill than the one currently on the table."

Either show us where you get your information or just shut up and stop being a troll

[callmeslick]

my version is accurate, Woody.

[woodchip]

Your version is crap unless you link something to prove it.

edit add:
Link to Forbes showing what, why and how the non related sandy pork got added:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ou-betcha/

In short the pork was added to lock in certain senators votes. Why you need a carrot for something like storm relief is beyond me.

Where's yo dollah

[callmeslick]

according to the NJ Congressional delegation(spokeperson on Philly news was Jon Runyon), they had a bill out of committee and awaiting a vote with ZERO added pork. You keep referring to the Senate bill, woody, and I clearly stated I was not talking about that one. Face it, this was one huge blunder, and one that will cost the GOP for years. Dance all you will, but that's the truth. When, as in this case, you have a sitting Senator and the most popular national figure in the party doing public reaming of their own party, it tells the whole story.

[woodchip]

The only one dancing is you Slick. I linked a Forbes article that showed pork was in bill. If you don't have something other than your assertions, kindly go to your Progressive board and post your tripe there.

[callmeslick]

The only one dancing is you Slick. I linked a Forbes article that showed pork was in bill. If you don't have something other than your assertions, kindly go to your Progressive board and post your tripe there.

your link described the Senate bill. From your link:
"The answer can be found in a quick review of the states that are set to benefit from the Senate’s extra-special benevolence—states including Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana"

Rep. Runyon(R-NJ) clearly stated that a House bill, completely separate, was out of committee and only needed to be sent to the floor for a vote, passed and then sent to the Senate for conference committee, which would have eliminated the pork. The resulting bill would have passed the Senate, because the GOP powers would have prevented filibuster so as to avoid political suicide for the party. Unfortunately for the GOP, the House has no such residual common sense. Rather than wishing my dissent away(ain't going to happen), perhaps you could actually avail yourself of easily available information and try and learn something for a change.

[woodchip]

From your own link Slick:

"While some Republicans have criticized the aid package for funds not directly linked to Sandy, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said the speaker is “committed to getting this bill passed this month.”

Once again, stop trying to spin this as the republicans fault. And please don't bring up anything about a different bill being help up in confrence. "Dirty" Harry Reid has held up far more to help to all the people of this country by not allowing any budget from the house to come up for a vote. So I applaud Boenher for telling Reid to get fucked. Maybe if Reid treated the House bills with a little respect, the house would do likewise. The whole system is dysfunctional and Americas credit rating is facing a third downgrade. Hope Obama likes having that on his record. On second thought I think this is his game plan anyway.

[Tunnelcat]

Once again, stop trying to spin this as the republicans fault. And please don't bring up anything about a different bill being help up in confrence. "Dirty" Harry Reid has held up far more to help to all the people of this country by not allowing any budget from the house to come up for a vote. So I applaud Boenher for telling Reid to get ****. Maybe if Reid treated the House bills with a little respect, the house would do likewise. The whole system is dysfunctional and Americas credit rating is facing a third downgrade. Hope Obama likes having that on his record. On second thought I think this is his game plan anyway.

The bills the House put forth were total junk as well. All they ever put forth was cut everything, especially Obamacare and Medicare. There were NO cuts to Defense and additional cuts to the tax rates. Junk solutions.

[Top Gun]

The primary reason the US's credit rating was downgraded the first time is because the batshit insane Teabaggers in Congress provided intense obstructionism to raising the prior debt ceiling, a practice which had normally been routine prior to that point. (Hell, many Western democracies don't even have a defined debt ceiling.) So if you're going to cast blame anywhere, lay it at the feet of the people who'd rather see us commit economic suicide than get over their ideological hard-ons and learn some pragmatism.

[Spidey]

Yes, because infinite dept would be pragmatic. I’m really sick of this country constantly being compared to other countries, this is America, and we do things our way! Maybe if some of those other countries had a debt ceiling, they wouldn’t be so far up the shits creek. (the ceiling forces debate on debt)

And, technically it would be the default that would lower ratings, not the dept ceiling, per se. The dept ceiling only delays the inevitable.

But, I’m sure if some European country does things differently, we should all just go all gaa gaa.

[Ferno]

and your way is going to get your collective asses onto the proverbial street.

[Top Gun]

Yes, because infinite dept would be pragmatic. I’m really sick of this country constantly being compared to other countries, this is America, and we do things our way! Maybe if some of those other countries had a debt ceiling, they wouldn’t be so far up the shits creek. (the ceiling forces debate on debt)

If our way is causing us problems that other other countries don't experience, i.e. obstructionism over a limit that serves no actual purpose, then yes, we should certainly be compared to said countries. Seriously, the debt ceiling doesn't do anything to control our actual debt: that's determined by the budget passed by Congress, while the ceiling simply limits the Treasury's ability to issue bonds on that debt. If it's something that doesn't make any sense in a modern-day national financial system, and if it's been transformed into nothing more than a political obstacle, then it should be tossed out, and good riddance.

[Sergeant Thorne]

That's bull****, Top Gun. Just because our present administration is pushing the ceiling, and turning it into a political issue... we shouldn't be pushing the limit, we should be reducing the debt. We don't need to eliminate the ceiling just because these ***holes can't keep to a budget any more than than can enforce our border laws.

[callmeslick]

That's bull****, Top Gun. Just because our present administration is pushing the ceiling, and turning it into a political issue... we shouldn't be pushing the limit, we should be reducing the debt. We don't need to eliminate the ceiling just because these ***holes can't keep to a budget any more than than can enforce our border laws.

the debt ceiling is a reflection of money ALREADY allocated. By Congress, I might add. Not raising it so that those debts can be paid in no way affects future spending, it merely lessens the creditworthiness of the nation, leading to higher interest rates and thus, higher debts. Also, on a budgetary note, I heard a very good description of the current status quo, and potential solutions the other night. The person speaking(whom I forget at the moment, name-wise) pointed out that currently, the US situation is:

1. Higher unemployment than is ideal

2. A long-term structural budget problem that would lead to unpayable debt, although the current level is quite managable.

3. Really cheap borrowing rates right now.

Thus, he said, the plan OUGHT to be to attack #1 and #2, while utilizing #3. In other words, borrow considerable money now to rebuild aging infrastructure, pump money into retraining and other educational initiatives and fund a lot of basic research which won't draw as much private capital to fund, yet has proven to lead to new technologies. This would address the unemployment, given construction trades make up much of the lagging part of the employment situation, and set the nation up for the next economic waves in a way which would enable the private sector to flourish(as has been historically the case with government seeding--e.g.information tech, microelectronics, etc). This, in turn, would lead to more stable tax revenue bases, and increased taxation income to the Treasury, and buy time to address the long-term structural issues around healthcare and social security. Since the borrowing was done on the ultra-cheap, payback would be relatively easy if the economy was stronger. Seems like a sensible strategy to me, as opposed to what I'm seeing proposed out of DC at the moment.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Why does the federal government have to pay for infrastructure, again?

What you're saying doesn't sound that bad, callmeslick, until one looks back on the cause of these problems. A governmental cause, followed by an unrelated governmental solution. That's like me shooting my neighbor's cats all of the time, while trying to convince them that dogs are sturdier pets and the solution is to buy a $700 pure-bred from a friend of mine, because this particular dog is resistant to much of the disease that leads to the premature death of many pets. You'd have to be taking stupid pills.

[Krom]

Probably the biggest reason the government has to pay for infrastructure is because private industry won't.

Upgrading infrastructure might generate profit in the long term, but in the absence of competition NOT upgrading infrastructure generates even more profit immediately and unfortunately virtually all of America's infrastructure is monopoly owned. So you get a nation that is gradually falling apart, and the only way to fix it is to pay for it yourself.

And don't bother trying to restore proper competition, because private industry owns the government and made it illegal.

[callmeslick]

Why does the federal government have to pay for infrastructure, again?

who else is going to? Private companies? Highly unlikely, and if so, you have to deal with privatization of access. Individual states? That creates a patchwork system that doesn't become efficient. The bottom line is the US is a NATION, and we have to deal with major issues as a nation, not some cobbled-together amalgam.

What you're saying doesn't sound that bad, callmeslick, until one looks back on the cause of these problems. A governmental cause, followed by an unrelated governmental solution.

I'll admit that some of the budget issues are governmental in nature. One of the big ones folks tend to forget is that GW Bush and company took 4 Trillion out of the budget. They cut taxes across the board, and ran two wars on the credit card. That $4 trillion is gone, and we aren't going to get it back, so we have to work forward from that. Otherwise, it is the JOB OF GOVERNMENT to provide for the long-term well being of it's citizens, and whether one cites the Interstate Highway Act, the space program, the development of the Internet or the basic medical research funded by the Federal government, the investments have ALWAYS paid HUGE dividends for the economy over the long haul. Sooner or later, we have to make those investments, or the nation crumbles into 2nd or 3rd rate status. Why not do it at a point where we can borrow money from the rest of the world, and our wealthier citizens, at rates around 0.6%?? Or, would you rather wait, go the Tea Party route and default on current borrowing, and look at 5% rates down the road? The latter approach does exactly what the doomsayers on the right always prattle about: it bankrupts our future generations. The way I suggest, and, might I add, virtually ALL respectable economists are currently urging, would end up paying massive dividends for our children and grandchildren.

The position you espouse, Thorne, is merely a reflection of a post-Reagan political mantra: All government is bad. That mantra has been, and will continue to kill our nation's future unless the public rejects it. The government reflects ALL of us, or ought to. And, in doing so, should work for the long term well being of ALL of us. It could, if the politicians, especially on the right, but certainly not limited to it, got off their ideologies and started doing the job that government should be doing.

[Top Gun]

The position you espouse, Thorne, is merely a reflection of a post-Reagan political mantra: All government is bad. That mantra has been, and will continue to kill our nation's future unless the public rejects it. The government reflects ALL of us, or ought to. And, in doing so, should work for the long term well being of ALL of us. It could, if the politicians, especially on the right, but certainly not limited to it, got off their ideologies and started doing the job that government should be doing.

The funny thing is, we already tried what was essentially a lack of a federal government. It was called the Articles of Confederation. And it sucked.

[Ferno]

Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

[Will Robinson]

Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

No, but if the only choice is a corporation with the mediocre track record or the Government, who will merely award the work to which ever mediocre corporation donates the most to the political party in power....well then I guess I'd just flip a coin. Because when you say 'Government has to do it' you know Barney Frank and Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner don't actually drive the bulldozers etc. so the private industry is going to do that kind of work one way or another.

What I'd really like is if there was an option that awarded the projects in a lottery to a random winner from a list of the best qualified corporations. At least you would be breaking that relationship between the winning bidder and the political party to some degree that way.

[Tunnelcat]

Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

Only if that corporation had to rely on their own product's quality to survive. If they were only concerned with profit, things would suck for the end user, us.

[woodchip]

Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

Yet you trust the govt. with shepherding such things as:

The war on Drugs
The War on Poverty
Social Security money deducted from your pay check