how bout the Senate passing a bill that has offsets to military spending and pork going to tea party districts?

Very fine idea…a new austerity…

“Why did 24 House Republicans shift their votes? “I’m chickenshit,” said Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).”

Smile :-)

I like that alot!

to give it legs we take out the military spending and bing, a frigging winning position;

how bout the Senate passing a bill that has offsets to pork going to tea party districts?

BRILLIANT!

here’s an add on that might even have MORE teath;

“we have no problem offsetting releaf so long as that off set comes from pork to the tea party’s district, they should be very happy demonstrating they want to stand behind their belief

“we propose offsetting the costs

while I can only hope it will shutdown for good, I am sure like the debt ceiling fiasco this will not happen

Congress should appoint a Super Committee Super Duper Committee to do their Constitutionally-mandated job.

If the Super Duper Committee feels overwhelmed by the task, they can then appoint their own Super Duper Sub Committee to take over and they in turn can appoint a Super Duper Sub Super Committee….

This is starting to sound like one of those old Prell commercials.

Just broom the entire lot and start over with people randomly chosen from the phone book, the new people couldn’t possibly be any more feckless than the current herd of goofs in Congress.

So sad. If Solyndra hadn’t gotten and wasted their $500 million loan guarantee, there would be 5 times as much for disaster relief offsets.

Solyndra was not Obama’s baby if that’s what you are implying.
It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.

but there shouldn’t be even talk of offsetting catastrophe relief alan, that’s why we fund our government in the first place, that’s the first place funds should go.

when we pay into a government that is for and by us, it’s called payed up front insurance when catastrophe strikes

the offset is a rediculous talking point trying to privatize things that we have seen time and time again, (even though the propagandists claim otherwise) cannot be run as inexpensively or as efficiently as when government does it

that’s the first place funds should go

That’s fine. But apparently the funds first went to Solyndra, and they spent it all and then closed the doors. So now a disaster comes along and what do you do? Decide to give (for profit) GM $100M for the Volt, or redirect that money to disaster relief, since it’s the first place funds should go?

Considering we’re still spending trillions getting ready to fight the Soviet Union, the Solyndra talking point is hilarious.

So you don’t care if the meat you buy is inspected, or if security screenings at airports cease, or if the drugs you use are safe, or if a major hurricane or tornado is coming, or if the elderly or disabled don’t get their benefit checks…

I wish the President really would shut every goverment function down for 48 hours — including the airports, the military and our border security, just to show the fools who say “Shut it all down” exactly what they’re asking for…

catastrophe relief is first alan, regardless of where money already went, there are NO offsets to catastrophe relief, what we do before or after to strengthen our economy can face offsets or return protocol

for instance;

it would be fine to offset the re distrubution of middle class assets to the wealthy, (marketed as “tax cuts”) with mandated positive return, that would be fine so we agree on that.

or for instance, if we privitise schools or parks or jails we should demonstrate positive return for that investment

of course those demonstrate negative return but that’s is another thread

I do believe we can demonstrate positive return on our investment in gm by the way, but that again is another thread

obama and the senate dems will let the government shut down?

i’ll believe it when i see it

the odds are closer to 7.5% than 75%

I’m not really sure what is wrong with taking the relief funds from the solar/energy funds. Surely, out of the 10 billion or more of these funds more stumbling companies not really fit for the loans can be found.

give the money to people who need it from disasters, or give it to companies that will waste it, go belly up, and leave us with the bill.

Not all these companies are like that, but certainly $100 million out of the billions likely are.

instead of talking about salyndra as where the offset funds went (which is not possible sine there are not offsets to catastrophe relief) why didn’t you mention the bush redistribution of middle class assets to the wealthy(marketed as tax cuts) as where the offsets went?

being a little selective there me thinks but I am full of snark today

anyway, here is something I think most people miss;

when there is a catastrophe assets have evaporated, which is a bad thing, it means the economy has shrunk by that given amount, putting in what it takes to get those assets back into the economy does not cost as much as the figures might appear

for instance, If you have 1 million dollars and it burned, it does not hurt one bit to print that one million dollars again to replace it

just looked myself up, yes, if money can be proven destroyed it will be replaced by the government;

Fiat money, if physically represented in the form of currency (paper or coins) can be accidentally damaged or destroyed. However, fiat money has an advantage over representative or commodity money, in that the same laws that created the money can also define rules for its replacement in case of damage or destruction. For example, the U.S. government will replace mutilated Federal Reserve notes (U.S. fiat money) if at least half of the physical note can be reconstructed, or if it can be otherwise proven to have been destroyed.[26]

because we have a fiat dollar, commodities represent a different situation but once an asset is destroyed the off set is there never the less

This is similar in the sense that there’s a principle at stake. Disaster relief funding, Democrats insist, has never been offset. They refuse to set that precedent and make someone else pay every time there’s a hurricane or flood. There have been no talks, no negotiations.

Yeah, they’ve got principles *snicker* It’s like the Congressional Democrats never understood the implications of them now supporting austerity. The Congressional Democrats should have told Obama to shut up when he created his original Catfood Commission and not passed legislation creating the unprecedented Catfood Commission II. Now the Democrats don’t really have much of a leg to stand on because of their own stupid policies – it’s like they think they can be half-pregnant with austerity. With Obama himself saying even his “jobs bill” has to be paid for, the Democrats can’t exactly oppose this from a position of strength because of their own doing.

This however should lead Reid to be challenged to draw a line in the sand on the social safety net. If Reid won’t pass a bill offsetting relief aid, he should certainly be willing to draw a line in the sand on larger social safety net issues and if he won’t draw a line then he should be hammered until he does. It makes no sense for the Democrats to draw a line in the sand on relief aid, but going wishy-washy on the social safety net.

The last hostage

The one and only measure it would be appropriate to attach as a rider to a budget bill, thereby holding the govt hostage, would be the law that ends the possibility of using either budget bills or the debt ceiling to hold hostages ever again. This law would state that the debt ceiling that Treasury has to follow is whatever level of debt is necessary to meet all legal obligations. It would also provide that, in the absence of a signed budget bill or at least CR for a given department’s operations, that the spending proposed in the administration’s budget is the legal obligation.

We have this one last hostage crisis, and when it’s over, there won’t be any more, ever.

hmm it was shut down during clinton and life went on. some of those thing you mention, I say no loss. the FDA is just a front for big ag and is hell bent in putting small/inde farms out of biz. Good to know it new chair comes from monsanto speak volumes. Airport security is a joke. sticking their hands on people’s genitals, and making old people remove their diapers is not security it is a violating of our human right. really drugs safe?

I think we need to end this corrupt system and move to a system that works for the people and not the elite few

Big AG gets it’s money from the US Department of AGRICULTURE not the Food and Drug Administration (an agency under Health and Human Services umbrella) — a totally different department.

There has never been a total government shut-down (under Clinton it was about a half dozen agencies) as some functions are continued by law — any agency function related to national security has to remain open — but the people working don’t get paid until Congress passes a CR, appropriation bill or an omnibus funding bill.

You’re not going to be able to “end this corrupt system” until you can prevent private industry from bending Congress by dumping money in the Reps and Senators’ pockets.