Yet another impending government shutdown

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politi...

Looks like the Dems are in no mood to help Boehner avoid a civil war within his party. Can't say I blame them.

Paleocon wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politi...

Looks like the Dems are in no mood to help Boehner avoid a civil war within his party. Can't say I blame them.

God damn it, CNN.

Many conservatives insist any spending bill should block any federal funds for the women's health organization after a series of secretly taped, edited videos released by an anti-abortion group purportedly show officials from the group talking about the sale of fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood denies any illegal activity.

Because there was no illegal activity... except, possibly, by the organization taping it. Stop making this out to be some kind of issue with two sides. There's two sides to the abortion debate, there is not two sides to the "organization's attempt at a smear campaign".

Republican lawmakers are, yet again, avoiding the feelings of the people of this country on Planned Parenthood to have yet another go at playing chicken with a sh*tload of people's lives and livelihoods.

Paleocon wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politi...

Looks like the Dems are in no mood to help Boehner avoid a civil war within his party. Can't say I blame them.

I can't think of a good reason for them to help.

So Republicans want to shut down the government over $450 million or 0.004% of the budget.

To put that into perspective $450 million is what we're spending to buy a little over three F-35s which we just found out can't out-fly or out-fight 1970s era F-16s. And yet no one is even talking about shutting down the government over the fact we're going to waste 24 times that amount--$11 billion--on those turkeys in 2016.

And didn't Republicans learn from the last time they pulled this prank? They're going to get blamed by the public and it's right before an election year.

OG_slinger wrote:

So Republicans want to shut down the government over $450 million or 0.004% of the budget.

To put that into perspective $450 million is what we're spending to buy a little over three F-35s which we just found out can't out-fly or out-fight 1970s era F-16s. And yet no one is even talking about shutting down the government over the fact we're going to waste 24 times that amount--$11 billion--on those turkeys in 2016.

And didn't Republicans learn from the last time they pulled this prank? They're going to get blamed by the public and it's right before an election year.

I had the same initial reaction, but it's still over a year away. I suspect we won't see quite this level of stupidity next year... maybe... ehhh... ok, probably.

Demosthenes wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

So Republicans want to shut down the government over $450 million or 0.004% of the budget.

To put that into perspective $450 million is what we're spending to buy a little over three F-35s which we just found out can't out-fly or out-fight 1970s era F-16s. And yet no one is even talking about shutting down the government over the fact we're going to waste 24 times that amount--$11 billion--on those turkeys in 2016.

And didn't Republicans learn from the last time they pulled this prank? They're going to get blamed by the public and it's right before an election year.

I had the same initial reaction, but it's still over a year away. I suspect we won't see quite this level of stupidity next year... maybe... ehhh... ok, probably.

Ted Cruz is still a senator, you know.

It's almost like Republicans want to keep losing the Presidency but winning enough of the Federal legislature to make the Federal government ineffective while doing things like (by my quick math) being +10 in governor's races while Obama's been in office.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

It's almost like Republicans want to keep losing the Presidency but winning enough of the Federal legislature to make the Federal government ineffective while doing things like (by my quick math) being +10 in governor's races while Obama's been in office.

You're inside my head.

Paleocon wrote:

Ted Cruz is still a senator, you know.

The world would have been a better place if he had stuck to his true calling and been a voice actor on, say, the Muppets.

OG_slinger wrote:

So Republicans want to shut down the government over $450 million or 0.004% of the budget.

To put that into perspective $450 million is what we're spending to buy a little over three F-35s which we just found out can't out-fly or out-fight 1970s era F-16s. And yet no one is even talking about shutting down the government over the fact we're going to waste 24 times that amount--$11 billion--on those turkeys in 2016.

And didn't Republicans learn from the last time they pulled this prank? They're going to get blamed by the public and it's right before an election year.

It's because the logic over what costs are worth fighting against is inversely proportional to the amount. $11 billion in contracts is way too much money to risk losing (and if I may add a nice large amount to hide kickbacks in). The people who would be getting those distributions would notice. Win or lose $450 million is too little to notice and thus worthy of an ideological fight to the death.

Demosthenes wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

So Republicans want to shut down the government over $450 million or 0.004% of the budget.

To put that into perspective $450 million is what we're spending to buy a little over three F-35s which we just found out can't out-fly or out-fight 1970s era F-16s. And yet no one is even talking about shutting down the government over the fact we're going to waste 24 times that amount--$11 billion--on those turkeys in 2016.

And didn't Republicans learn from the last time they pulled this prank? They're going to get blamed by the public and it's right before an election year.

I had the same initial reaction, but it's still over a year away. I suspect we won't see quite this level of stupidity next year... maybe... ehhh... ok, probably.

If anything passes it will be another "stop-gap" bill and we'll repeat this song and dance at least once more before the general election. But given how nutty the party's primary season has been this certainly isn't going to win people's hearts & minds. Especially when the party promised they could demonstrate an ability to govern if they won a majority in both chambers of Congress (presumably hoping to tee up a Republican president in 2016).

I also don't think Boehner is going to lose his speakership over this like people are speculating. As much as I think him vacating the Speaker's chair is long overdue*, he hasn't been seriously/openly challenged yet by any of the other factions in his caucus despite the numerous times he's come under fire for not totally capitulating to them or allowing crazy stuff like this to happen. Dude's a political cockroach at this point.

* I'm honestly not sure if him losing the speakership would be an improvement at this point.

We also have a debt limit vote coming up before the end of 2015, so there'll be another chance for them to posture in front of the Know-Nothings.

Republicans are already selling the idea that any shutdown is the fault of Democrats, for refusing to act against the heinous crimes of Planned Parenthood. Thanks Obama!

Robear wrote:

Republicans are already selling the idea that any shutdown is the fault of Democrats, for refusing to act against the heinous crimes of Planned Parenthood. Thanks Obama!

The stage is being set for that portion of the fight by recently-withdrawn Presidential candidate Scott Walker, who today announced that he will work with the legislature to prevent Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin from receiving $3.5mil of Title X funds from the federal government.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Robear wrote:

Republicans are already selling the idea that any shutdown is the fault of Democrats, for refusing to act against the heinous crimes of Planned Parenthood. Thanks Obama!

The stage is being set for that portion of the fight by recently-withdrawn Presidential candidate Scott Walker, who today announced that he will work with the legislature to prevent Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin from receiving $3.5mil of Title X funds from the federal government.

Something tells me he's about to find out that the Federal Government officials who oversee distribution of those funds doesn't exact fall over when a governor says they're going to put that money elsewhere.

Just found out that it's not about $450 million. It's about $235 million.

The CBO ran the numbers and found that cutting funding to Planned Parenthood would mean that many people would simply get those same medical services through another Medicaid-reimbursed provider next year. Of course upwards of 650,000 people wouldn't be able to find an alternative medical provider and not get the services they needed.

And if Congress could permanently defund Planned Parenthood taxpayers would be on the hook for $650 million in increased spending over the next decade since Medicaid picks up about 45% of the costs of births. And that figure doesn't include additional spending on other government assistance programs that those extra babies might need, etc.

Gotta wonder were all the fiscal conservatives are and why they aren't telling their fellow Republicans to not cut off their nose to spite their face.

Demosthenes wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Robear wrote:

Republicans are already selling the idea that any shutdown is the fault of Democrats, for refusing to act against the heinous crimes of Planned Parenthood. Thanks Obama!

The stage is being set for that portion of the fight by recently-withdrawn Presidential candidate Scott Walker, who today announced that he will work with the legislature to prevent Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin from receiving $3.5mil of Title X funds from the federal government.

Something tells me he's about to find out that the Federal Government officials who oversee distribution of those funds doesn't exact fall over when a governor says they're going to put that money elsewhere.

Something something imperialistic big government something something.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Robear wrote:

Republicans are already selling the idea that any shutdown is the fault of Democrats, for refusing to act against the heinous crimes of Planned Parenthood. Thanks Obama!

The stage is being set for that portion of the fight by recently-withdrawn Presidential candidate Scott Walker, who today announced that he will work with the legislature to prevent Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin from receiving $3.5mil of Title X funds from the federal government.

Something tells me he's about to find out that the Federal Government officials who oversee distribution of those funds doesn't exact fall over when a governor says they're going to put that money elsewhere.

Something something imperialistic big government something something.

Living in Ohio, I've seen two elected officials run on promising to redistribute grant money, only to find out, you can't do that.

Mayor Cranley ran on shutting down the street car project for downtown and using the money for highway repair. His opponents specifically ran ads saying "It doesn't work that way." People voted him in anyway (a lot of folks were against cheaper transportation for the inner city, who would have guessed?)... and... lol, grants don't work that way. Cranley tried to act like he was going to make Obama let him use the money (seriously) and... nope!

Governor Kasich tried to do the same thing with grand money for a high speed rail system between... I think Columbus and Cleveland. Tried to get it used for industrial shipping rail instead... then... lol, grants don't work that way. At least this wasn't a huge corner stone of his campaign.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Looks like Boehner's had enough

If he does resign (I'm seeing online this morning that he won't). How is the replacement decided?

Sounds like that could be a crazy time for Republicans in the house.

Yeah, crazy time indeed.

The entire house has to vote on the speaker, and the winner must have a majority of the whole House (both parties.) Usually each party gets to select one senior member, but people are allowed to vote for anyone they want, even someone in another party or who isn't one of the major party selections.

I'm really surprised by this. I half wonder if he's leaving now that he was able to scratch "hosted the Pope" off his bucket list? Can't blame the guy for calling it quits though. It's a thankless job and while he seemed largely ineffective he had one hell of a caucus to herd during his tenure.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

The entire house has to vote on the speaker, and the winner must have a majority of the whole House (both parties.) Usually each party gets to select one senior member, but people are allowed to vote for anyone they want, even someone in another party or who isn't one of the major party selections.

That is probably what's most terrifying about this. Who knows who's going to be running the zoo in a month?

Well, my instinct would be that the Democrats would have a sh*t ton of leverage here. If the Republican chamber was split, the establishment Republicans need Democrats to vote for their choice. Democrats are already fed up (for good reason) with the Republican party's inability to get anything done. If I were a betting man, I'd say we'd get a speaker who is more moderate and less crazy than Boehner was.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Well, my instinct would be that the Democrats would have a sh*t ton of leverage here. If the Republican chamber was split, the establishment Republicans need Democrats to vote for their choice. Democrats are already fed up (for good reason) with the Republican party's inability to get anything done. If I were a betting man, I'd say we'd get a speaker who is more moderate and less crazy than Boehner was.

If the Democrats were not the Democrats I would agree but as it stands they are utterly incapable of ever applying political leverage in a useful way. Every time I think they have some sort of means of pressuring the GOP to function properly they fail to capitalize.

Establishment R's would probably need to make some hefty compromises to get D support. Which will probably rile up the extremists further and ensure that the chamber remains as dysfunctional as before. I don't see how this is going to improve things even with a more moderate Speaker. Unless you consider not wasting money on more votes to defund ObamaCare as progress.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Well, my instinct would be that the Democrats would have a sh*t ton of leverage here. If the Republican chamber was split, the establishment Republicans need Democrats to vote for their choice. Democrats are already fed up (for good reason) with the Republican party's inability to get anything done. If I were a betting man, I'd say we'd get a speaker who is more moderate and less crazy than Boehner was.

I fear that this is a case of better the devil you know than the one you don't. As much as Boehner was an ineffective speaker (and he was), he did at least try to pull the crazies away from the cliff a couple times (e.g.: the CR to fund DHS, the CR to fund the government as a whole, the heading off of Cruz's insanity over the debt ceiling). That is a low bar to be sure, but I am unconvinced that there exists a handful of Republicans who love their country enough to even do that.

That's a good point, Paleo & shoptroll re: The devil you know. It is a roll of the dice. We could get a better speaker who runs the House more efficiently, spends less time wasting money trying to vote to defund the ACA, and who can reign in the crazies. Or we could get someone who isn't as good at reigning in the crazies...

The idealist buried in me thinks that if the latter happened and the inmates took over the asylum, it would be the death knell that's been threatening to manifest for awhile with the Republican party and possibly lead to a rebirth of more sane conservatism that isn't as steeped in racism, war mongering, and fear. But not until some real damage had been done.

So if even my inner idealist is worried...

Exactly, Harpo. Boehner's got more than tea leaves to read. If he's determined that the crazies *can't* be adequately shut down, he's quite capable of lancing the wound for the party. And remember, he's had support from the moderates, but the Tea Party and it's media arms (including, I think, Fox) have not treated him well. This could be his way of saying "Fine, see how well you do".

The fact that he's doing it now indicates to me that he believes that Republican electoral strategy has gone haywire, and he doesn't want to ride that crazy horse.

I don't think the next speaker will be able to control the crazies. The GOP will elect someone closer to the anti establishment side of the party, and there is no way this new speaker will ever allow something requiring Democratic support to ever reach the House floor. This would start the same no confidence votes and replacement talks that got them here in the first place.

I am terrified of the upcoming debt ceiling vote in December, as I think the new speaker will not bring a clean resolution for a vote. He will have to have the crazy votes to stay in power, so look for a ceiling hike paired with a repeal to the ACA, flat tax, abortion ban, etc., all of which will fail in the senate.

Choo choo, all aboard the crazy train.

Dezlen wrote:

I don't think the next speaker will be able to control the crazies. The GOP will elect someone closer to the anti establishment side of the party, and there is no way this new speaker will ever allow something requiring Democratic support to ever reach the House floor. This would start the same no confidence votes and replacement talks that got them here in the first place.

I am terrified of the upcoming debt ceiling vote in December, as I think the new speaker will not bring a clean resolution for a vote. He will have to have the crazy votes to stay in power, so look for a ceiling hike paired with a repeal to the ACA, flat tax, abortion ban, etc., all of which will fail in the senate.

Choo choo, all aboard the crazy train.

A very negative outlook, which is probably the most likely.

HOWEVER, on the positive side, I guess there is a small chance of a Democrat + Establishment Republican coalition that gets a non-crazy Republican into the Speaker role. The easy part would probably be to get the Democrats to play along, the hard part would probably be finding enough Republicans.

Is it too late for him to register as a presidential candidate?