Senate GOP pledges to block all bills

[BostonPirate]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/01/gop.senate.demands/index.html?hpt=T1

Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.
All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

the effects on the military are the most dibitating effect that this will have on america, IMO.

There will be a block on the start treaty that will trigger a new arms race, as Mr Putin has bluntly stated in a recent interview, and DADT will not be repealed, in spite of the will of the people. Gays will continue to leave the service or be forced out.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg really.

This is only going to get worse when they take over the house of reps in January

I have never seen a group of 42 men who hate democracy as much as these loathsome creatures.

 

[hotatlboi]

Of course they will. That's what they've been doing for the last 2 years. Now they've just formalized it into a written strategy.

Their goal is to block action on everything, then accuse the Dems of getting nothing done when they are the ones in charge. It's worked pretty well for them politically. Not worked so well for those who actually want to get things done to improve the country.

 

[BostonPirate]

Given that their base isn't exactly known for critical thinking skills, this isn't surprising.

they have perpetrated no less than fraud on the americaqn voters by outright lying about nearly every issue for two years. They were given power as a reward.

It will only get worse.

 

[jackoroe]

So, ensuring that everybody's taxes don't increase, causing a certain depression and ensuring that the government is properly funded for the next ten months aren't important? Perhaps if the democrats had actually passed a budget instead of playing political games, we wouldn't be where we are. But if memory serves me, the OP actually liked the idea of not having a budget. Well, I hope you enjoy it now.

How about we quit fucking around, address these two issues and then there will still be plenty of time to get to everything else? We don't want to keep Obama from his vacation in Hawaii, God forbid.

 

[BostonPirate]

I want the taxes to be raised.

dont play games with me, jack.

talk about the topic without taking a personal shot or just skip the thread.

 

[BostonPirate]

this thread is on topic and dragging other threads into this one is supposed to be off limits...

I guess the mods are above the rules they are supposed to uphold.

 

[jackoroe]

I want the taxes to be raised.

dont play games with me, jack.

talk about the topic without taking a personal shot or just skip the thread.

It's not personal to remind you of your position on the budget not having been passed. Unless of course, you've recently been elected to Congress in which case may I offer my congratulations.

 

[hotatlboi]

So, ensuring that everybody's taxes don't increase, causing a certain depression and ensuring that the government is properly funded for the next ten months aren't important?.

Oh puhLEASE. If you have an ounce of intelligence (which I assume you do) then you know this is nothing more than a political tactic by McConnell to say that the more controversial items up for debate in the lame duck are going nowhere as far as Republicans are concerned.

Every person in the Senate knows that tax cuts and government funding are important. But no one knows when a final solution will be worked out. The scheduling for everything on the agenda in the lame duck is already hard enough.

There's no reason that if a compromise is still being worked out on taxes or whatever that the Senate can't address something else in the mean time.

This is just more ridiculous obstructionism from the GOP, more sticking their fingers in their ears and say we are going to block everything. It's reprehensible, and there's no defense of it.

This also pretty much kills any chance DADT has of being repealed if these moderate GOP senators really are going to vote against it.

 

[JB3]

this thread is on topic and dragging other threads into this one is supposed to be off limits...

I guess the mods are above the rules they are supposed to uphold.

Jackoroe's post was perfectly on-topic. Just because you didn't like what he said doesn't make it otherwise.

 

[jackoroe]

this thread is on topic and dragging other threads into this one is supposed to be off limits...

I guess the mods are above the rules they are supposed to uphold.

The budget, or lack of one, is one of the issues that is causing the logjam. That is on topic.

 

[BostonPirate]

all 42 republicans personally signed the statement.

they are going to shut down the govt if they dont get money for the wealthy....

it backfired on Newt when he tried this.

 

[BostonPirate]

The budget, or lack of one, is one of the issues that is causing the logjam. That is on topic.

no jack

You're just airing a personal problem you had with one of my statements a month back.

 

[JB3]

all 42 republicans personally signed the statement.

they are going to shut down the govt if they dont get money for the wealthy....

it backfired on Newt when he tried this.

I think you're overestimating this, to be perfectly honest. This is what happens during negotiations over something controversial; one side makes an idle threat to try and scare the other one.

This time I doubt there's anything behind it. In fact, this may just be political cover for a deal already worked out.

 

[jackoroe]

Oh puhLEASE. If you have an ounce of intelligence (which I assume you do) then you know this is nothing more than a political tactic by McConnell to say that the more controversial items up for debate in the lame duck are going nowhere as far as Republicans are concerned.

Every person in the Senate knows that tax cuts and government funding are important. But no one knows when a final solution will be worked out. The scheduling for everything on the agenda in the lame duck is already hard enough.

There's no reason that if a compromise is still being worked out on taxes or whatever that the Senate can't address something else in the mean time.

This is just more ridiculous obstructionism from the GOP, more sticking their fingers in their ears and say we are going to block everything. It's reprehensible, and there's no defense of it.

This also pretty much kills any chance DADT has of being repealed if these moderate GOP senators really are going to vote against it.

I believe DADT is currently not a stand alone, but within an appropriation bill. Funding the government may have the unintended consequence of repealing DADT. They actually may have outsmarted themselves!

 

[BostonPirate]

I think you're overestimating this, to be perfectly honest. This is what happens during negotiations over something controversial; one side makes an idle threat to try and scare the other one.

This time I doubt there's anything behind it. In fact, this may just be political cover for a deal already worked out.

you mean squalk loud to the base and then do something they dont like?

yeah

that has been done many times by many politicians from both sides of the aisle for a while.

But the official line of the republican party is now in writing as obstructionist.

 

[BostonPirate]

the truth is

allowing people to keep their earned $$$

in past serious situations the rich gladly gave over 90 percent of their income in taxes.

But that was when all americans believed that Uncle sam was worthwhile.

The money had to come from someswhere, and I am convinced the end result needs to be that all of these cuts need to end.

they are what caused the budget to go into deficit again.

 

[JB3]

they are what caused the budget to go into deficit again.

The budget would have done that without the help of the tax cuts. There's no question about that. The only question would be what the difference in size would have been.

 

[BostonPirate]

Interesting how (many) Libs & Cons view personal money or income

I think there is where the philosophical divide begins

I am actually a hard core conservative when it comes to economics.

I think you need to remember what being conservative really means. What it DOESN'T mean is giving wealthy people money when we have a ballooning debt and deficit.

last I checked fiscal conservatism meant paying your bills.

 

[hotatlboi]

I believe DADT is currently not a stand alone, but within an appropriation bill.

No it isn't, it's in an authorization bill.

Authorization bills set policy (and authorize funding levels), appropriations bills provide funding.

 

[JB3]

you mean squalk loud to the base and then do something they dont like?

yeah

that has been done many times by many politicians from both sides of the aisle for a while.

But the official line of the republican party is now in writing as obstructionist.

Well, considering that part of the reason that they won is to address the issues they want the senate to focus on, I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that its obstructionist.