Tea Party Republicans Shut Down The Goverment Yet They Will Continue To Get Paid

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Daily Beast


How Congress Will Still Get Paid in a Government Shutdown


Shutdown or no shutdown, members of Congress aren’t worried about their own finances this week. Patricia Murphy on how the 27th Amendment protects the salaries of the House and Senate.


1374958_10151701562441275_1777040234_n.png



Ted Cruz is leading the charge in the Senate (and apparently the House) to defund the Affordable Care Act, even as the strategy hurls the country toward a government shutdown on Tuesday. But on Friday night, Cruz told a Texas audience that he plans to keep his Senate paycheck during the shutdown while much of the rest of the government grinds to a halt and other federal employees go without pay. A handful of other senators and members of Congress have said they won't take a salary starting this week if they don't pass a continuing resolution to fund the government, but so far Cruz is the only one to say he has no plans to stop getting paid.

"At least at the current time, I have no intention to do so," Cruz said when an audience member at the Texas Tribune festival asked if he would forgo his Senate salary if Congress fails to reach an agreement this week to fund the federal government. Cruz added that he had not given much thought to the question before and reiterated that he doesn't think the government should shut down.

But no matter whether Cruz and others in Congress think the government should shut down, it is becoming abundantly clear that the government will shut down and that hundreds of thousands of federal employees around the country who are paid through annual appropriations will be furloughed without pay as long as it lasts. Millions more, including active-duty members of the military, will be required to report to work without a salary until the government goes back to regular operations. Although service members and other federal workers have been paid retroactively after past shutdowns, the House and Senate would have to approve the back pay, which is not guaranteed.

Members of Congress will have no such dilemma about the future of their own finances this week because the 27th Amendment to the Constitution specifically stipulates that the salaries of the House and Senate cannot change until a congressional election has come and gone. Members of both chambers currently make $174,000.

The 27th Amendment was originally hatched by the Founding Fathers and ratified in 1992 to prevent senators and House members from boosting their own salaries before an election. But the reality is that Congress is now the only class explicitly protected by the Constitution from financial pain in the event that they themselves fail to fund regular government operations. Even their own congressional staff members will be furloughed or go to work on Capitol Hill without the promise of getting paid once the dust settles.


Twitter reacts to the House vote to delay Obamacare.


“They don’t seem to care about the single mom who works as a custodian in one of our government buildings who is struggling to get by.”


A handful of Democrats and Republicans have stepped forward recently to say they will not accept their paychecks this week if a shutdown occurs. Alabama Republican Rep. Martha Roby has said she shouldn’t get paid if members of the military don't get paid. "This is Congress’s problem to fix," she said. Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) says he'll donate his salary to charity if Congress can't agree on a continuing resolution. "Michigan families work hard and when they don’t go to work, they don’t get paid," Peters said. "The same should hold for Congress."

On Saturday, Rep. Pete Gallego (D-TX) introduced a bill to designate members of Congress as "non-essential employees," meaning they would be stop being paid along with the other federal employees starting on Tuesday.

Looking to take the decision out of individual members' hands, Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced legislation in January to prevent any member of the House or Senate from getting paid in the event of a government shutdown. A similar bill passed the Senate unanimously in 2011, but the House never voted on it. This year, as the likelihood of a shutdown looks more certain than ever, Boxer's bill has one co-sponsor, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA).

"How is that Republicans who are urging a shutdown of the government are not co-sponsors of my bill?" Boxer said Friday. "They want to protect their own pay, they want to protect themselves and their families, but they don’t seem to care about the single mom who works as a custodian in one of our government buildings who is struggling to get by ... These Republicans are willing to put the livelihoods of millions of American workers at risk—but not their own."

Late Saturday night, just before the House passed the latest version of the latest funding bill that President Obama had already promised to veto, Reps. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Frank Wolf (R-VA) both said that regardless of congressional action, federal employees should get paid this week and into the future, no matter what. "They should not be punished because the president and Congress cannot agree," Wolf said. Moran added that a shutdown would only hurt the people who have no power to avoid it.

"What are we doing this for?" Moran said. "This doesn't make sense."
 

The Tea Party’s Vision, Realized ???



tedcruz_obamacare-92013-thumb-640xauto-9199.jpg


SHUTDOWN

Just how did it come to this?


The immediate funding problem arose when this Congress, cited by the Pew Research Center as one of the least productive in recent history, failed to pass any of the 13 appropriations bills which together fund the federal government. These measures totaling $3.8 trillion in spending cover everything from clean water enforcement to the funding of distressed school districts to air traffic control.

With the government’s fiscal year ending on October 1st, Congress needed to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the doors open.

But instead of moving forward with a clean temporary spending measure, officially called a “continuing resolution,” this past Friday the House GOP decided to load the bill down with language on a wholly different matter: the defunding of Obamacare. This despite the fact that, for months, President Obama has threatened to veto the zeroing out of the Affordable Care Act and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has long vowed that such a measure would never leave the Senate.

As confusing and shocking as the House’s brinksmanship this week may be, it should not come as a surprise.

For the Tea Party-inspired members of the GOP who swept to victory in the 2010 congressional elections—and the billionaires who funded them—it was always about Obamacare. In their eyes, the Affordable Care Act was the latest in a decades-long expansion of government that had to be stopped at all costs. It’s the issue that they used to win their seats in the first place. Since the GOP majority was sworn into office in 2011, the House has taken up 42 votes to defund Obamacare, and at key steps has taken action to weaken the government as a whole. Sequestration, this year’s across the board budget cuts, are the most visible example, but there are others. The 2011 debate over the debt ceiling; the 2012 post-election argument over taxes; and the push for stop-gap extensions of borrowing authority this year have all been used to undermine the foundations of government by either sowing policy chaos or denying funding.

The timing and sequencing of each of these battles over the past several years has set up the current standoff. House Speaker John Boehener said last month, “What I’m trying to do here is leverage the political process to produce more change than what it would produce if left to its own devices. We’re going to have a whale of a fight.”

That’s why the Senate’s tea party champion, Ted Cruz of Texas, pressed for his colleagues to “stand your ground” this past weekend on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

Why the GOP “do or die” outlook?

Armed with the “makers vs. takers” philosophy Mitt Romney advanced, the Republicans who captured the lower branch of Congress in 2010 had a simple goal. The point was to sap the strength of the parts of the government that provide economic opportunity to those historically locked out of the American dream. The essential idea was to turn the resources of the government over to those whom they believe are more historically deserving through tax cuts funded by spending reductions. Which is why the House voted to slash food stamps, officially known as SNAP, by $40 billion on the same day that it essentially voted to shut down the government.

The problem is that economic facts don’t line up with the House GOP’s economic fiction. The truth is that the current slump is driven by economic inequality, driven by the government’s turn away from economic justice and its racial dimensions. In fact there’s a strong case to be made that the U.S. has been trying it the GOP’s way for years, and that it hasn’t worked.

As Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Jared Berstein points out, 95 percent of the $3 trillion gains in national wealth since 2000 have flowed to the top 1 percent. All the while the median income of American households is at its lowest level since 1989; wages are at a 40-year low; the unemployment rate for youth, blacks and Latinos is in the double digits; and African American and Latino wealth is the lowest on record. The almost million jobs forecast to be lost next year due to sequestration won’t help, but neither will the fact that the country’s tax burden for its wealthiest citizens is at its lowest level in 60 years. All of these facts lead Berstein to conlclude that there’s a “deep disconnect” in the American economy. The same could be argued for its political system.

Though a last-minute legislative compromise might still avoid a shutdown, the bottom line is that next Tuesday most Americans will stand on the brink of an economic nightmare in order to fulfill the House GOP’s unyielding economic fantasy. That is a fantasy they will continue to pursue, no matter the costs. Why wouldn’t they? In their eyes, as Sarah Palin told Fox’s Shannon Beam, shutting down the government and defunding Obamacare is a matter of “economic justice.”



SOURCE


 
Let's see how stupid the American people are in the midterm elections. I bet most of these fuckers get re-elected.
 


Let's see how stupid the American people are in the midterm elections. I bet most of these fuckers get re-elected.

Take the bet, with or without the points. Many of them are from gerrymandered districts made safe by redistricting and there is little fear that any of them will be unseated.
 
The party of family values!


source: Huffington Post

Congressmen Still Boozing As Government Shuts Down


With just hours to go until a government shutdown, Congressmen couldn't seem to agree on much except the fact that drinks were in order.

Reporters tweeted Monday night that they could smell booze on the lawmakers working to strike a last-minute spending deal on Capitol Hill:

About every other House lawmaker I just talked to smelled like booze. It's only 9pm. Wheeee!
— jennifer bendery (@jbendery) October 1, 2013
<SCRIPT charset=utf-8 src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async></SCRIPT>
confirmed. also, it's a bipartisan affair RT @jbendery: About every other House lawmaker I just talked to smelled like booze. It's only 9pm.
— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) October 1, 2013
HuffPost asked one tired-looking House lawmaker if he planned to go get a drink while the Senate took the lead on the government-funding bill for a while. He begrudgingly said no.

"I can't," he grumbled. "I have to be back in two hours."

But Capitol Hill boozing is becoming a trend. Reporters shared stories of seeing and smelling alcohol-fueled lawmakers Saturday night.

House Republicans are unwilling to fund the government without dismantling Obamacare. When that bill passed the House in 2010, Democrats did plenty of boozing themselves, much of it at The Tune Inn, a dive bar just blocks from the Capitol, but plenty of it inside the building as well.

Meanwhile, 800,000 federal workers could be furloughed if the government shuts down.
 
Take the bet, with or without the points. Many of them are from gerrymandered districts made safe by redistricting and there is little fear that any of them will be unseated.

The only fear they have is of someone even crazier than them beating them in a primary.
 
typical post.

typical talking points.

typical responses.

Same shit, different crisis.

BTW, did the last shut down in 1995 destroy the economy? (you don't have to answer this because I know many will avoid this question anyway...)
 
typical post.

typical talking points.

typical response.

Same shit, different crisis.

BTW, are you comparing apples and apples or apples and oranges? (you don't have to answer this because I know you don't know the difference anyway...)
 
it aint the republican whores.. they just fuckin whores..

disgustingly nasty whores with no class or compassion. but whores..

vote them out.. WHO FUCKIN CARES the kock brothers got cushy jobs lined up for them already..

you got to kill the head to stop the snake...koch bros are more of the snake head...


and let me get this right...

Last I checked the republicans were part of the govt riiiiigght..

so if the govt shuts down, then so should their pay...


if not,it just proves voting is a fuckin waste of time..

unless I can vote for my own raise as well...


fuck voting for a whore... again and again...

I vote to kick the koch brothers out the country and seize all of their assets....
 
typical post.

typical talking points.

typical response.

Same shit, different crisis.

BTW, are you comparing apples and apples or apples and oranges? (you don't have to answer this because I know you don't know the difference anyway...)

I'm really talking about the typical post Thought brings up.

He/she only sees things one way.

It's all the republicans fault.

Obama has nothing to do with the shut down.

BTW, I know this will piss him/her off, but I don't remember President Bush dealing with a shut down.... I wonder why...
 
source: Washington Post


A government shutdown could hurt economy more now than it did in 1995

The U.S. economy is more fragile today than it was before the last federal government shutdown. A quick recovery followed that time, but conditions are different now.

WASHINGTON — The last time the federal government shut down, for three weeks in the winter of 1995-96, the American economy felt a jolt but recovered quickly.

Things don't look anywhere near as promising this time around.

The nation is currently more than four years into an economic expansion with some momentum behind it. That also was the case in 1995. But this time, things are a lot more fragile.

Shutdown Q&A: How long? What's the impact?

Americans continue to suffer from a relatively high unemployment rate of 7.3%, which is about 2 percentage points higher than in December 1995. Back then, job growth was stronger, the economy was starting to benefit from the tech boom, and baby boomers were entering their prime earning years, not preparing for retirement.

The recovery from the Great Recession has been sluggish and repeatedly held back by political budget battles, but many had been hoping the economy would pick up steam heading into next year. Housing and stock markets have been growing, and consumers have cut their debts and are feeling more confident.

"Even in the best-case scenario," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, "it's going to slow things down."

Estimates of economic effect vary.

However, most analysts predict that a two-week partial government shutdown would shave 0.3 to 0.4 of a percentage point from economic growth in the fourth quarter. Much of this would be due to lost pay for hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal workers.

Although not devastating, that's not a small amount either, especially for an economy that has been growing this year at an anemic annual rate of less than 2%.

A longer downtime would result in increasingly larger and escalating problems for the economy. It would cause disruptions in private-sector production and investments, as well as greater volatility in financial markets.

During the 21-day shutdown from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996, stocks lost about 4% of their value, according to Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist for S&P Capital IQ. But after President Clinton and Congress reached an agreement and government offices reopened, stocks took off, shooting up more than 10% in the following month.

Data show that job growth also quickly bounced back after stalling that December. And economic growth soared to more than 7% annualized in the second quarter of 1996 after weakening to 2.7% in the first quarter.

That sharp rebound was helped by back-to-back rate cuts by the Fed. But today the central bank's benchmark rate is already near zero, and its unconventional stimulus — buying $85 billion of bonds every month — is seen by many people as enough.

The Fed has been contemplating trimming the stimulus, but it held back from doing so in September partly because of the budget impasse and its threatening effects.

Also, this time, it's unclear whether federal workers considered to be in nonessential jobs and facing furloughs would be able to recoup their pay, as they did in 1996. The current political environment suggests this would be hotly contested.

"In the past, Congress has always paid furloughed workers when the budget agreement is achieved, but there is no guarantee," said Daniel Meckstroth, an economist for the manufacturers group known as MAPI. "Tea party hard-liners will likely put up stiff resistance to any agreement that remunerates federal employees for the time they did not work."

Some of MAPI's member companies fear that federal contractor payments will be delayed. Based on the experience of 1995-96, a wide variety of businesses, local governments and ordinary citizens across the country could expect to feel a pinch from closures or disruptions at national parks, ports, passport offices and other public services.

If a shutdown were to last more than a short period, Ebony Brown figures she would have to look for another job. Brown works in the cafeteria at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, which like many other government operations contracts out food services.

"You've got to pay bills," she said Monday, unsure whether she would report to work Tuesday.

State governors worry that the budget fallout in Washington would trickle down to them, setting back the progress made during the tough recovery when they slashed spending and overhauled programs.

"A lack of certainty at the federal level from a shutdown … translates directly into uncertainty and instability at the state level," the National Governors Assn. said in a letter to congressional leaders. "That uncertainty can lead to the suspension of programs and services, increased borrowing costs or even layoffs."

Although difficult to measure, most analysts agree that the longer the shutdown, the higher the uncertainty. And that could mean a greater cost to the economy.

Surveys show consumer sentiment weakened in September, with some expressing concerns about the budget situation. The drop, though, was much less than the plunge in confidence during the summer of 2011 when a protracted fight over the debt ceiling threatened to cause a default, led to a downgrading of the U.S. credit rating and weakened momentum in the recovery.

By economist Mark Zandi's estimations, the high levels of uncertainty during the recovery have cost the American economy $150 billion in activity and up to 1 million jobs.

"With each passing day [of a shutdown], investors are going to grow more nervous," said Zandi, of Moody's Analytics. "It'll show up in lower stock prices, which we're already seeing, higher interest rates for mortgages and business loans and an eroding confidence among businesses and consumers who will pull back on spending and investments."

For now, many are grappling with more immediate concerns of a partially disabled government — and how businesses and investors would react to that.

On Friday, the Labor Department is scheduled to release its monthly jobs report. Many analysts think the job gains for September may show a welcome improvement from the recent slowdown. But in the event of a federal government shutdown, Labor Department officials indicated that the report could be delayed.

"All survey and other program operations will cease and the public website will not be updated," Erica L. Groshen, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said in a Sept. 10 memo, although it is possible that the jobs report could still be released as planned if it receives a special exemption.

But the government issues many economic reports every week, and uncertainty hanging over them would make it harder for people to gauge how the economy is performing. And that could affect hiring and other decisions.

"They're certainly going to be reluctant to undertake investments if they don't have a clue what's going on in the economy," said Baker, the Washington economist.
 
source: About.com

Government Shutdowns in the Past

Duration and Year of Government Shutdowns


There have been 17 government shutdowns in in the past. There were six shutdowns ranging from eight to 17 days in the late 1970s, but the duration of government shutdowns shrank dramatically beginning in the 1980s.

And then there was the longest government shutdown in U.S. history in late 1995, lasting three weeks and sending hundreds of thousands of government workers home without paychecks.

There have been no government shutdowns since then, though the threat resurfaces during almost every session of Congress, including the 113th.

Most Recent Government Shutdowns


The most recent government shutdowns came in the 1996 fiscal year, during President Bill Clinton's administration.
  • The first government shutdown of the Clinton administration lasted five full days from Nov. 13 through Nov. 19, 1995, according to the Congressional Research Service. Some 800,000 federal workers were furloughed during that shutdown.
  • The second government shutdown was the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. It lasted 21 full days from Dec. 15, 1995, to Jan. 6, 1996. Some 284,000 government workers were furloughed and another 475,000 worked without pay, according to the Congressional Research Service.
List of All Government Shutdowns and their Duration


This list of government shutdowns in the past was drawn from Congressional Research Service reports:


  • 1995-1996 (President Bill Clinton): December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, - 21 days
  • 1995 (President Bill Clinton): Nov. 13 to 19 - 5 days
  • 1990 (President George H.W. Bush): October 5 to 9 - 3 days
  • 1987 (President Ronald Reagan): December 18 to December 20 - 1 day
  • 1986 (President Ronald Reagan): October 16 to October 18 - 1 day
  • 1984 (President Ronald Reagan): October 3 to October 5 - 1 day
  • 1984 (President Ronald Reagan): September 30 to October 3 - 2 days
  • 1983 (President Ronald Reagan): November 10 to November 14 - 3 days
  • 1982 (President Ronald Reagan): December 17 to December 21 - 3 days
  • 1982 (President Ronald Reagan): September 30 to October 2 - 1 day
  • 1981 (President Ronald Reagan): November 20 to November 23 - 2 days
  • 1979 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30 to October 12 - 11 days
  • 1978 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30 to October 18 18 days
  • 1977 (President Jimmy Carter): November 30 to December 9 - 8 days
  • 1977 (President Jimmy Carter): October 31 to November 9 - 8 days
  • 1977 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30 to October 13 - 12 days
  • 1976 (President Gerald Ford): September 30 to October 11 - 10 days
<!--/gc-->
 
But can we get a national Vote,

to kick evil corporations out and seize their assets..

do we need govt permission for every fukin thing..

Or do we have a mind of our ownn

attacking police and politicians is stupid and just going around in circles.

we got to checkmate the oligarchs..

but yall aint tryin to hear dat!!
 


The Tea Party’s Vision, Realized ???



tedcruz_obamacare-92013-thumb-640xauto-9199.jpg



SHUTDOWN

Just how did it come to this?
.....

I believe the shutdown has its origins in
Waterloo
Remember ???



"I can almost guarantee you this thing won't pass before August,
and if we can hold it back until we go home for a month's break
in August," members of Congress will hear from "outraged"
constituents, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said on the call,
which was organized by the group Conservatives for Patients Rights.

"Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to
vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding
that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America."

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo.
It will break him,"


- South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint July 2009








Waterloo

Pronounced - - wa·ter·loo (wȯ-tər-ˈlü, or, ˌwä-tər-ˈlü)

Definition - - a decisive or final defeat or setback <a political waterloo>

Origin - - Waterloo, Belgium, scene of Napoleon's defeat in 1815

First Known Use - - 1816



 

Graph Explains Why Obama Rejected the
Piecemeal Approach to Funding Government


The piecemeal approach is a plan to both fund government as soon
as possible and leave government unfunded as long as possible




The government is still shut down, as thousands of workers go without pay, food goes without inspection, and sick patients go without clinical trials. Meanwhile, Republicans have offered to restore funding on a piece-by-piece basis that would pay some of those workers and treat some of those patients.

The president has said no. But why, CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller asked at the press conference today.

Obama responded that while he's "certainly tempted" to take up the GOP offers, he didn't want to fund slivers of the government, one at a time. On the one hand, funding the discretionary budget bit by bit spares the most headline-y victims and lessens the pain of shutdown. On the other hand, the piecemeal approach ... well, spares the most headline-y victims and lessens the pain of shutdown, prolonging the crisis, itself.

So, depending on how you look at it, the piecemeal approach is both a plan to fund government as soon as possible and a plan to leave government unfunded as long as possible.

There is a graph for this, of course. Michael Linden counts up the six piecemeal non-defense appropriations bills passed by the House (and unsigned by the president) and the eight other bills the House wants to pass in the coming weeks. "Together, these 14 bills allocate approximately $83.1 billion in funding," Linden writes. That would leave 82 percent of the $470 billion non-defense discretionary government unfunded.

In other words (and colors), Obama wants to fund the whole pie below. The GOP, which would like to pair government funding with Obamacare's defunding or delay, is asking him to fund the blue slices only. The White House's logic is that passing the blue stuff makes it more likely that we go even longer without the larger, redder part of the pie.

Piecemeal_budgeting.png


This isn't three-dimensional chess, exactly. It's not even chess. It's just a radical wing of the Republican party exerting on House members while holding the rest of government hostage. Meanwhile, the list of casualties deepens: the roads, the patients, the kids, the border, the veterans, the economic data, the product-safety inspections ...



SOURCE


 

Let's see how stupid the American people are in the midterm elections. I bet most of these fuckers get re-elected.


Take the bet, with or without the points. Many of them are from gerrymandered districts made safe by redistricting and there is little fear that any of them will be unseated.


The only fear they have is of someone even crazier than them beating them in a primary.



Maybe there is hope:



"Throw the bums out.

That’s the message 60 percent of Americans are sending to Washington in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">including their own representative</span>, they would. Just 35 percent say they would not.

The 60 percent figure is the highest-ever in that question recorded in the poll, registered in the wake of the government shutdown and threat of the U.S. defaulting on its debt for the first time in history.

We continue to use this number as a way to sort of understand how much revulsion there is,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the poll with Republican Bill McInturff. “We now have a new high-water mark.”

The numbers reflect a broader trend over the last few years. Americans have traditionally said that while they might not like Congress, they usually like their own representatives. But that sentiment appears to have shifted.

The throw-them-all-out attitude has slowly taken hold over the last three years, coinciding with two things – the rise of the Tea Party caucus in the House and the debt ceiling fight of 2011.

  • In October 2010, a majority of Americans – 50 percent to 47 percent – said they would not fire all congressional members.

  • But by August 2011, 54 percent said they would toss every lawmaker from office;

  • in January 2012, 56 percent said that; and

  • just three months ago, in July, it was 57 percent.

Frustration was evident among poll respondents across the ideological spectrum."



See, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress



 
I give about a half a fuck about a right or left wing, its the same damn whorebird...


but the stupid republicans are NOT just shooting themselves in the foot, they just chopping off the whole fuckin leg..

check that approval rating...

its headed straight to hell....
 








Maybe there is hope:

"Throw the bums out.

That’s the message 60 percent of Americans are sending to Washington in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would. Just 35 percent say they would not.

The 60 percent figure is the highest-ever in that question recorded in the poll, registered in the wake of the government shutdown and threat of the U.S. defaulting on its debt for the first time in history.

We continue to use this number as a way to sort of understand how much revulsion there is,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the poll with Republican Bill McInturff. “We now have a new high-water mark.”

The numbers reflect a broader trend over the last few years. Americans have traditionally said that while they might not like Congress, they usually like their own representatives. But that sentiment appears to have shifted.

The throw-them-all-out attitude has slowly taken hold over the last three years, coinciding with two things – the rise of the Tea Party caucus in the House and the debt ceiling fight of 2011.


  • In October 2010, a majority of Americans – 50 percent to 47 percent – said they would not fire all congressional members.
  • But by August 2011, 54 percent said they would toss every lawmaker from office;
  • in January 2012, 56 percent said that; and
  • just three months ago, in July, it was 57 percent.
Frustration was evident among poll respondents across the ideological spectrum."




See, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress





Just a reminder to the so-called centrists and so-called moderates:

Media Myth; Both Political Parties Are Equally Intransigent
 

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, announced Wednesday that Democratic and Republican Senate leaders had reached final agreement on a deal to reopen the government and extend its borrowing authority into February. Votes in the House and the Senate could begin in the afternoon, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.



New York Times: Senate Reaches Bipartisan Fiscal Deal

 

Well, they've voted to end the shutdown, but the can was just kicked down the road. They may be back in January 2014, if so, here's to remember who they are:





<IFRAME SRC="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/32-republicans-who-caused-the-government-shutdown/280236/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/32-republicans-who-caused-the-government-shutdown/280236/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Here’s the list of 18 Senators who voted against reopening the government:

Coburn, Tom - (R – OK)
Cornyn, John - (R – TX)
Crapo, Mike - (R – ID)
Cruz, Ted - (R – TX)
Enzi, Michael B. - (R – WY)
Grassley, Chuck - (R – IA)
Heller, Dean - (R – NV)
Johnson, Ron - (R – WI)...
Lee, Mike - (R – UT)
Paul, Rand - (R – KY)
Risch, James E. - (R – ID)
Roberts, Pat - (R – KS)
Rubio, Marco - (R – FL)
Scott, Tim - (R – SC)
Sessions, Jeff - (R – AL)
Shelby, Richard C. - (R – AL)
Toomey, Patrick J. - (R – PA)
Vitter, David - (R – LA)
 




The Ongoing and Continuing Fight Against Healthcare
Trench Warfare
Funded & Orchestrated by
The Koch Brothers & their Americans for Prosperity


<iframe src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_1aca_131021' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></iframe>


 
Back
Top