House Democrats Attempt To Shut Down Government

[BlackSand]

There is no reason (as in rational, sane or productive) to argue with those whose mind is closed and who are true believers, as well as 100% partisan.

Lolz ... No argument with that approach.
As a Conservative though, I often wonder why sane, rational, open minded people rush to put partisan, corrupt, self-indulgent politicians in charge of anything.

I am not saying that things could not be better if the government worked properly and truly had everyone's best interests in mind ... I just think it is foolish to believe the government will act responsibly or that politicians will protect everyone's interests properly ... Especially in the current environment.

.

The current hostile environment is a product of the failure to get the money out of politics. Not only campaign donations and the way they can be given. or taken away (or given to an opponent) if the candidate or incumbent is not biddable, as well as the generally iniquitous ads by anonymous (committee for the American Way, Apple Pie and baseball) funded by individuals or small special interest groups (Swift Boating Ads).

Citizen United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC drove nails into the coffin of democracy in America. Anyone who believes the five votes for each of these decision was about free speech please leave me an e-mail, I have a bridge for sale over the SF Bay.

See that is where we disagree ... Not that we disagree on the idea the money in politics is bad ... But that you think it is appropriate to give government power over policies that can be corrupted by money (whether it is Federal revenue or private funds).

If the money didn't make a difference, then there would be nothing to disagree about ... And if you want the money out of politics ... Quit supporting policies that put the money right at the front of the line.

If it just comes down to what money is more important ... Leave that in the hands of the people whose money it is. No need to cater government to failing policies and irresponsible management ... And it is only senseless to do so.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no reason (as in rational, sane or productive) to argue with those whose mind is closed and who are true believers, as well as 100% partisan.

Here you go princess....

 

[Disir]

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980

Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982

Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999

Fuck Libertopia!

I forget: who was president in 1980 and 1982?

You know perfectly well.

Further, you are also aware that there has been a libertopian deregulation swing since the 1970s.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find that there is a distinction between a fiscal conservative (Tea Party type) and a fiscally responsible conservative. The former doesn't want to pay for anything that is not listed in Sec. 8 (yet reading the first paragraph one is struck by this phrase, "...provide by the common defense (against disease, as well as foreign nations?) and the general Welfare..." [Huh!!!]) and the latter willing to liberally interpret the COTUS to act pragmatically and in the best interest of the people and our posterity.

 

[BlackSand]

I find that there is a distinction between a fiscal conservative (Tea Party type) and a fiscally responsible conservative. The former doesn't want to pay for anything that is not listed in Sec. 8 (yet reading the first paragraph one is struck by this phrase, "...provide by the common defense (against disease, as well as foreign nations?) and the general Welfare..." [Huh!!!]) and the latter willing to liberally interpret the COTUS to act pragmatically and in the best interest of the people and our posterity.

Defense against invasive bacterial or viral diseases is just as important as foreign nations. General welfare is not the same as social welfare no matter how you slice it.

Having a fire truck to answer calls is not the same as requiring everyone to get rid of matches. Both would reduce the danger of fire ... But one would clearly ignore the rights of the people and be a government abuse of power.

The difference exists in the degree to which you take from one person to provide for another ... The Constitution indicates the government should protect their citizens and can levy taxes to do provide for protective measures. That doesn't mean rob them and redistribute their wealth.

And by the way ... The government doesn't relinquish my responsibility to help those I find in need because some damn fool thinks the idiotic wasting of my money on a failing corrupt bureaucracy is more responsible.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find that there is a distinction between a fiscal conservative (Tea Party type) and a fiscally responsible conservative. The former doesn't want to pay for anything that is not listed in Sec. 8 (yet reading the first paragraph one is struck by this phrase, "...provide by the common defense (against disease, as well as foreign nations?) and the general Welfare..." [Huh!!!]) and the latter willing to liberally interpret the COTUS to act pragmatically and in the best interest of the people and our posterity.

Defense against invasive bacterial or viral diseases is just as important as foreign nations. General welfare is not the same as social welfare no matter how you slice it.

Having a fire truck to answer calls is not the same as requiring everyone to get rid of matches. Both would reduce the danger of fire ... But one would clearly ignore the rights of the people and be a government abuse of power.

The difference exists in the degree to which you take from one person to provide for another ... The Constitution indicates the government should protect their citizens and can levy taxes to do provide for protective measures. That doesn't mean rob them and redistribute their wealth.

.

What does general Welfare mean?

Yes, the 16th Amendment does provide the legal basis to collect taxes, and those dollars are not robbed, they are legally collected and provide the things necessary for the people in a developed nation. What is necessary is decided by the people who vote for those who represent us in The Congress and the White House.

If you believe our representatives should spent nothing to repair, replace or renew our aging infrastructure, that will be how you vote. And that is what a fiscal conservative wants, vis a vis what a fiscally responsible person wants.

It's funny (not ha ha funny) that tea party conservatives complain about the deficit, and claim Democrats have created a massive debt for our children (which btw isn't true, the D's were helped by the R's) and yet don't worry about our bridges and roads, electrical grid and water supply, air and soil quality which our children and their children will experience.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Asking a question of self defined conservatives is liking asking a question to a wall.

 

[BlackSand]

Asking a question of self defined conservatives is liking asking a question to a wall.

I gave an example if general welfare in the post you responded to ... Fire truck to be specific. That does not mean that all general welfare is restricted to fire trucks ... Nor does it mean that taxes cannot be collected to pay for fire trucks.

I identified Social Welfare as redistribution of wealth ... In which case that would be considered robbery in any other sector of society other the a progressive's view of government responsibility.

Expecting you to understand your personal responsibility is not excused when you decide to use someone else's money to address social issues through government overreach ... Is possibly expecting too much from you.

It isn't like I have ever expected for you to agree. It wouldn't be logical for you to accept personal responsibility over shirking your duties off to the government ... And then thinking Social Welfare is in the least bit compassionate.

.

 

[Synthaholic]

How many teabaggers voted against this bill, that puts the taxpayers back on the hook for Wall St. bailouts?

Wasn't that the whole reason the Tea Party was concocted in the first place?

No teabaggers voted against the bill since there aren't any in the House..

Wow. You sure you shouldn't be on some football or NASCAR forum instead, dummy?




Who is the Tea Party Caucus in the House?

Sandy Adams (FL-24)
Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Todd Akin (MO-02)
Rodney Alexander (LA-05)
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-09)
Diane Black (TN-06)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Dan Burton (IN-05)
John Carter (TX-31)
Bill Cassidy (LA-06)
Howard Coble (NC-06)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Ander Crenshaw (FL-04)
John Culberson (TX-07)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Blake Farenthold (TX-27)
Stephen Lee Fincher (TN-08)
John Fleming (LA-04)
Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
Wally Herger (CA-02)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Steve King (IA-05)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Jeff Landry (LA-03)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Rich Nugent (FL-05)
Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Mike Pence (IN-06)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Tom Price (GA-06)
Denny Rehberg (MT-At large)
David Roe (TN-01)
Dennis Ross (FL-12)
Edward Royce (CA-40)
Steve Scalise (LA-01)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Adrian Smith (NE-03)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Cliff Stearns (FL-06)
Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Joe Walsh (IL-08)
Allen West (FL-22)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)



A more current list:


The caucus chair was Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Of a total possible 435 Representatives, as of January 6, 2013, the committee had 48 members, all Republicans.[19]

• Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Chair
• Joe Barton of Texas
• Gus Bilirakis of Florida
• Rob Bishop of Utah
• Diane Black of Tennessee
• Michael C. Burgess of Texas
• Paul Broun of Georgia
• John Carter of Texas
• Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
• Howard Coble of North Carolina
• Mike Coffman of Colorado
• Ander Crenshaw of Florida
• John Culberson of Texas
• Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
• Blake Farenthold of Texas
• Stephen Fincher of Tennessee
• John Fleming of Louisiana
• Trent Franks of Arizona
• Phil Gingrey of Georgia
• Louie Gohmert of Texas
• Vicky Hartzler of Missouri
• Tim Huelskamp of Kansas
• Lynn Jenkins of Kansas
• Steve King of Iowa
• Doug Lamborn of Colorado
• Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri
• Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
• Kenny Marchant of Texas
• Tom McClintock of California
• David McKinley of West Virginia
• Gary Miller of California
• Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina
• Randy Neugebauer of Texas
• Rich Nugent of Florida
• Steven Palazzo of Mississippi
• Steve Pearce of New Mexico
• Ted Poe of Texas
• Tom Price of Georgia
• Phil Roe of Tennessee
• Dennis A. Ross of Florida
• Ed Royce of California
• Steve Scalise of Louisiana
• David Schweikert of Arizona[20]
• Pete Sessions of Texas
• Adrian Smith of Nebraska
• Lamar S. Smith of Texas
• Marlin Stutzman of Indiana[21]
• Tim Walberg of Michigan
• Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia
• Joe Wilson of South Carolina

There are still no Representatives in the House I know of that refer to themselves as teabaggers.

It is wonderful you found a list of the Tea Party Caucus ... Have a cookie and what was your count on those who voted against the bill?

.

I don't give a fuck what they call themselves. They should call themselves the Know-Nothings.

And BTW, there aren't any Representatives who call themselves libtards, either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Asking a question of self defined conservatives is liking asking a question to a wall.

I gave an example if general welfare in the post you responded to ... Fire truck to be specific. That does not mean that all general welfare is restricted to fire trucks ... Nor does it mean that taxes cannot be collected to pay for fire trucks.

I identified Social Welfare as redistribution of wealth ... In which case that would be considered robbery in any other sector of society other the a progressive's view of government responsibility.

Expecting you to understand your personal responsibility is not excused when you decide to use someone else's money to address social issues through government overreach ... Is possibly expecting too much from you.

It isn't like I have ever expected for you to agree. It wouldn't be logical for you to accept personal responsibility over shirking your duties off to the government ... And then thinking Social Welfare is in the least bit compassionate.

.

Social Contract Theory & Christian Ethics vis a vis Callous Conservativism. The former are compassionate - no matter how you and others like you try to spin it; the latter has always been a deadly sin. RR, your Messiah, notwithstanding.

 

[BlackSand]

Social Contract Theory & Christian Ethics vis a vis Callous Conservativism. The former are compassionate - no matter how you and others like you try to spin it; the latter has always been a deadly sin. RR, your Messiah, notwithstanding.

Well ... Your ideas on Social Contracts, Christian Ethics, Callous Conservatism, Deadly Sins, the Messiah and whatever the hell RR is ... Really don't have much at all to do with the Constitution in regards to the federal powers defined therein.

But you are free to keep spinning yours wheels thinking you can fix social problems like poverty and irresponsibility through failing corrupt bureaucratic nightmares that show no compassion for anyone while trapping those you intend to assist where they are.

Yet I never have expected you understand the concepts of personal responsibility ... Nor the idea that taking responsibility for your actions helps you get further ahead in life ... And helps you invest the proper time and effort necessary to actually assist another.

Your plan to fix failure is a failure and your failure to understand only means you will continue to fail.

.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't give a fuck what they call themselves. They should call themselves the Know-Nothings.

And BTW, there aren't any Representatives who call themselves libtards, either.

I am not sure anyone cares about what you decide to give fucks in regards to ... I am certain no one has to care in that regard.

And by the way ... I haven't referred to any libtards ... Whatever the hell that is either. I am sorry if you care about libtards and teabaggers ... I just don't. You can sit in the corner and pitch a fit if you like ... Or pick your nose until your head caves in for that matter.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Social Contract Theory & Christian Ethics vis a vis Callous Conservativism. The former are compassionate - no matter how you and others like you try to spin it; the latter has always been a deadly sin. RR, your Messiah, notwithstanding.

Well ... Your ideas on Social Contracts, Christian Ethics, Callous Conservatism, Deadly Sins, the Messiah and whatever the hell RR is ... Really don't have much at all to do with the Constitution in regards to the federal powers defined there in.

But you are free to keep spinning yours wheels thinking you can fix social problems like poverty and irresponsibility through failing corrupt bureaucratic nightmares that show no compassion for anyone while trapping those you intend to assist where they are.

Yet I never haven expected you understand the concepts of personal responsibility ... Nor the idea that taking responsibility for your actions helps you get further ahead in life ... And helps you invest the proper time and effort necessary to actually assist another.

Your plan to fix failure is a failure and your failure to understand only means you will continue to fail.

.

LOL, thank you for proving your bias and a mind, mindful of a bear trap. Since we are on the Internet, we can be anything we want to be. Suffice it to say, I retired at age 57 very comfortably.

RR was of course Ronald Reagan, the Messiah for today's Callous Conservative. "It's you money", leading the charge to put more change in the pocket of the well-to-do and more pot holes in life for the hoi polloi.

 

[BlackSand]

LOL, thank you for proving your bias and a mind, mindful of a bear trap. Since we are on the Internet, we can be anything we want to be. Suffice it to say, I retired at age 57 very comfortably.

RR was of course Ronald Reagan, the Messiah for today's Callous Conservative. "It's you money", leading the charge to put more change in the pocket of the well-to-do and more pot holes in life for the hoi polloi.

Any attempt to get me to argue that "walking the walk" is less important than "talking the talk" ... Only reverts back to your obvious failure to even "talk the talk" in regards to the ability to assist anyone in becoming more productive.

I don't have to do anything for you to continue to be ignorant concerning the proper means by which to assist others in a productive manner. I don't have know what you have done to understand the direction you support is less productive than actually assisting others with proper time and effort.

I can accomplish whatever I need to do to fulfill my responsibilities to assist others without your cooperation, agreement, failing government programs, bureaucratic corruption or simple compliance.

The only real damaging bear trap is the constant desire to ignore personal responsibility and individual accountability far outweighs anything you can suggest. As long as you continue to ignore that ... The longer you will remain trapped and the more you will do to keep others trapped with you.

Free your mind and your ass will follow.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL, thank you for proving your bias and a mind, mindful of a bear trap. Since we are on the Internet, we can be anything we want to be. Suffice it to say, I retired at age 57 very comfortably.

RR was of course Ronald Reagan, the Messiah for today's Callous Conservative. "It's you money", leading the charge to put more change in the pocket of the well-to-do and more pot holes in life for the hoi polloi.

Any attempt to get me to argue that "walking the walk" is less important than "talking the talk" ... Only reverts back to your obvious failure to even "talk the talk" in regards to the ability to assist anyone in becoming more productive.

I don't have to do anything for you to continue to be ignorant concerning the proper means by which to assist others in a productive manner. I don't have know what you have done to understand the direction you support is less productive than actually assisting others with proper time and effort.

I can accomplish whatever I need to do to fulfill my responsibilities to assist others without your cooperation, agreement, failing government programs, bureaucratic corruption or simple compliance.

The only real damaging bear trap is the constant desire to ignore personal responsibility and individual accountability far outweighs anything you can suggest. As long as you continue to ignore that ... The longer you will remain trapped and the more you will do to keep others trapped with you.

Free your mind and your ass will follow.

.

You're full of shit, but that's your right. And by full of shit I mean the ideology you have adopted isn't pragmatic nor is it ethical. I'm sure you give well worn clothes to the poor, and may even serve the poor a meal on Thanksgiving - maybe you even donate a turkey. But your vote goes to those who benefit you, not those you believe to be lazy and lack personal responsibility even though there are tens of thousands & more who you have no personal knowledge of and why they may be stuck in poverty.

Government exists in the United States and should (IMO) operate within the vision statement given to us in 1789:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

By your vote, though you deny it, you are affirming this creed: "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you". You've also adopted the legal interpretation that the Preamble has no force of law. To which I agree. It is the vision of the founders, a mission statement and thus a signpost for future generations. One sadly, and to our discredit has been ignored by the Callous Conservatives no matter what standard bearer they support.

 

[BlackSand]

You're full of shit, but that's your right. And by full of shit I mean the ideology you have adopted isn't pragmatic nor is it ethical. I'm sure you give well worn clothes to the poor, and may even serve the poor a meal on Thanksgiving - maybe you even donate a turkey. But your vote goes to those who benefit you, not those you believe to be lazy and lack personal responsibility even though there are tens of thousands & more who you have no personal knowledge of and why they may be stuck in poverty.

Government exists in the United States and should (IMO) operate within the vision statement given to us in 1789:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

By your vote, though you deny it, you are affirming this creed: "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you". You've also adopted the legal interpretation that the Preamble has no force of law. To which I agree. It is the vision of the founders, a mission statement and thus a signpost for future generations. One sadly, and to our discredit has been ignored by the Callous Conservatives no matter what standard bearer they support.

If you quit ignoring your personal responsibility to assist others with the proper time and effort necessary to become more productive ... Facilitated by your intentional misinterpretation of the Federal Government's responsibilities in order to excuse your own accountability ... Then we may actually get somewhere.

Otherwise ... The continued insistence that we pursue ineffective methods to correct problems created and solidified by your abject failure to accept your own responsibilities will only result in continued failure.

Any attempt to identify what I may or may not do ... Will never address your obvious disregard for accountability in ensuring what you are doing and supporting is actually accomplishing anything other than the willful neglect of others ... And the idea you are satisfied with making the government responsible for your failures.

Again ... Your agreement is not necessary and certainly not sought ... You have nothing but irresponsible, unaccountable and negligent behavior to offer. I don't choose to neglect anyone and I desire to actually help them ... And I don't need to bastardized the Constitution in hopes to shackle others to failure in order to accomplish the proper course of action.

You simply do not have to agree with me to understand your methods are not working.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're full of shit, but that's your right. And by full of shit I mean the ideology you have adopted isn't pragmatic nor is it ethical. I'm sure you give well worn clothes to the poor, and may even serve the poor a meal on Thanksgiving - maybe you even donate a turkey. But your vote goes to those who benefit you, not those you believe to be lazy and lack personal responsibility even though there are tens of thousands & more who you have no personal knowledge of and why they may be stuck in poverty.

Government exists in the United States and should (IMO) operate within the vision statement given to us in 1789:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

By your vote, though you deny it, you are affirming this creed: "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you". You've also adopted the legal interpretation that the Preamble has no force of law. To which I agree. It is the vision of the founders, a mission statement and thus a signpost for future generations. One sadly, and to our discredit has been ignored by the Callous Conservatives no matter what standard bearer they support.

If you quit ignoring your personal responsibility to assist others with the proper time and effort necessary to become more productive ... Facilitated by your intentional misinterpretation of the Federal Government's responsibilities in order to excuse your own accountability ... Then we may actually get somewhere.

Otherwise ... The continued insistence that we pursue ineffective methods to correct problems created and solidified by your abject failure to accept your own responsibilities will only result in continued failure.

Any attempt to identify what I may or may not do ... Will never address your obvious disregard for accountability in ensuring what you are doing and supporting is actually accomplishing anything other than the willful neglect of others ... And the idea you are satisfied with making the government responsible for your failures.

Again ... Your agreement is not necessary and certainly not sought ... You have nothing but irresponsible, unaccountable and negligent behavior to offer. I don't choose to neglect anyone and I desire to actually help them ... And I don't need to bastardized the Constitution in hopes to shackle others to failure in order to accomplish the proper course of action.

You simply do not have to agree with me to understand your methods are not working.

.

"My methods, your methods"? You have no way to know what methods I might employ to correct government policies and solve some of the recurrent issues which afflict our country, such as crime, poverty and an ineffective government. And you've never sought to define the problems we Americans face, so concerned as you are on your pocketbook.

Government has a purpose beyond the scope of the Enumerated Powers and to deny that it does is to close your eyes and mind to two-hundred + years of our history; this is the reason I find Libertarianism both impractical and a nostrum; I find the Republican Party to be dishonest, and little more than a biddable party beholden to our nations power elite, our iteration of the First and Second Estates.
\
It's not that I'm a great fan of the Democratic Party, they too seek advantage and make dumb mistakes (we all do). I support Democrats because the talk the talk and mostly walk the walk of Utilitarianism.

 

[BlackSand]

"My methods, your methods"? You have no way to know what methods I might employ to correct government policies and solve some of the recurrent issues which afflict our country, such as crime, poverty and an ineffective government. And you've never sought to define the problems we Americans face, so concerned as you are on your pocketbook.

Government has a purpose beyond the scope of the Enumerated Powers and to deny that it does is to close your eyes and mind to two-hundred + years of our history; this is the reason I find Libertarianism both impractical and a nostrum; I find the Republican Party to be dishonest, and little more than a biddable party beholden to our nations power elite, our iteration of the First and Second Estates.
\
It's not that I'm a great fan of the Democratic Party, they too seek advantage and make dumb mistakes (we all do). I support Democrats because the talk the talk and mostly walk the walk of Utilitarianism.

First of all ... The problems exist and I have no problem facing them. It would be far sight better if everyone faced the problems more honestly and with the intention to actually accomplish something.

The "your methods" I was referring to was the idea that government can successfully cure social ills. I made no claim that I didn't think the abusive policies supporting government malfeasance haven't been going on for quite some time ... And they have continually failed in fixing anything. If you need to cling to failure to feel better about yourself ... That says more about you than me.

The only mention I made of my pocketbook concerns is centered on the fact I could use the same money more efficiently than wasting any of it in a corrupt, failing bureacratic manner ... And it is foolish to suggest otherwise. That doesn't mean I am suggesting I can keep my money and let things sort themselves out ... Nor does it support your constant desire to make the whole argument about greed or "I have mine, Screw you".

That is why your ideas continue to fail ... Because you keep putting faith in failure. At least we can agree that neither Republicans nor Democrats are worth a damn.

.

 

[WelfareQueen]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston Churchill


Read more at Socialism is a philosophy of failure the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy its... - Winston Churchill at BrainyQuote

 

[WelfareQueen]

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan

Read more at Government Quotes - BrainyQuote