Selective Shutdown Over for Pentagon. The Light just got turned on the Kabuki Theater Stage

[leveymg]

In other words, the Tea Party got EXACTLY what they wanted from the SELECTIVE shutdown of the federal government. What did the Democrats gain from this?




The federal government just got shrunk in a bathtub without anyone in the Democratic ledger having to go on record to vote directly for it, and the military is exempted from having its trousers taken in. Jitters about the Debt Ceiling aside, Wall Street is exultant about the Sequester and partial shutdown. The NASDAQ was up 7 or 8 percent in September, and the Dow has risen nearly 15% since the Sequester started.

The GOP got exactly what they wanted, and if his past statements are any indication, Obama IS willing to give them more than half of what they want, at least in Social Security program cuts.

Pentagon: Most Furloughed Civilians Ordered Back
Source: AP

The Pentagon is ordering most of its approximately 400,000 furloughed civilian employees back to work.

The decision by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is based on a Pentagon legal interpretation of a law called the Pay Our Military Act.

That measure was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama shortly before the partial government shutdown began Tuesday.

The Pentagon did not immediately say on Saturday exactly how many workers will return to work. The Defense Department said "most" were being brought back.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/pentagon-furloughed-civilians-ordered-back-20482298

The GOP now has absolutely zero reason to make any deals until 10/17, and then Obama will give them at least 50% of what they want in the way of cuts to Social Security because it's what he and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party want, too.

There are those who suggest the GOP will have to cave. How does the GOP have to cave? All they have to do is vote on the 17th for a CR to avoid federal default, something the financial sector and most corporations would never permit.

So, what are the Republicans really giving up? Most of the GOP is not opposed to a personal mandate (which is Romneycare, after all) - they're just making noise about Obamacare to keep their base happy. Obama has already indicated he's happy to give them cuts to Social Security and Medicare and some other (unstated) social programs as part of a Grand Bargain.

How are the Republicans going to cave if they sign a CR? You tell me - what are they really going to give up?

[jberryhill]

1. Kabuki

Please spell worn-out cliches properly.

[leveymg]

34. Thanks

Lots of miles, but still starts every morning.

[jberryhill]

56. *snort*

[grasswire]

2. taking down the scenery now. nt

[leveymg]

35. Died in New Haven or headed to Broadway?

[Kelvin Mace]

3. People forget that Obama is fighting

for a budget less than what Paul Ryan was initially demanding.

So, even if the GOP caves without more concessions, WE.HAVE.LOST.

We’ve already essentially adopted that Ryan budget - Washington Post

[ProSense]

7. No,

the clean CR being discussed is different from the Senate budget.

From the piece linked to in the WaPo article:

The Senate-passed measure to keep the government operating represents an enormous compromise by progressives to avoid a damaging government shutdown. The Democrat-controlled Senate agreed to temporary funding levels that are far closer to the Republican-controlled House budget plan than they are to the Senate’s own budget for fiscal year 2014. Moreover, this concession is only the latest of many such compromises over the past several years.

The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a continuing resolution, or CR—a temporary funding measure meant to keep the government operating—that would set the relevant funding levels at an annualized total of $986 billion. That’s about $70 billion less than what the Senate endorsed as part of its comprehensive budget plan back in April. But that actually understates the extent of the compromise.

The President described the compromise CR passed by the Senate.

Now, I want everybody to understand what's happened, because sometimes when this gets reported on everybody kind of thinks, well, you know, both sides are just squabbling; Democrats and Republicans, they're always arguing, so neither side is behaving properly. I want everybody to understand what's happened here. The Republicans passed a temporary budget for two months at a funding level that we, as Democrats, actually think is way too low because we’re not providing help for more small businesses, doing more for early childhood education, doing more to rebuild our infrastructure. But we said, okay, while we’re still trying to figure out this budget, we’re prepared to go ahead and take the Republican budget levels that they proposed.

So the Senate passed that with no strings attached -- not because it had everything the Democrats wanted. In fact, it had very little that the Democrats wanted. But we said, let’s go ahead and just make sure that other people aren’t hurt while negotiations are still taking place.

President Obama's speech detailed Republican belligerence in causing the Government shutdown
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023782420

The Senate budget, which ends the sequestration, is being blocked. Warren talks about it here.

This piece is from July 1:

Republican Obstruction Of Budget Process Hits 100th Day

By Alan Pyke

Monday marks 100 days since the Senate passed a budget amid bipartisan praise of the open process. But initial Republican eagerness to work on a budget has given way to the obstructionism that’s defined the Senate minority under Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Over the past hundred days, Republicans have blocked 15 separate attempts to go to a budget conference with the House of Representatives. Now that the House and Senate have passed their own versions, each is supposed to appoint representatives to a committee that reconciles them into one bill that can be passed by each body and signed by the president.

The handful of Republicans who are blocking a conference on the 2014 budget cite a variety of reasons, including fears that the conference agreement would include a deal preventing another debt ceiling crisis. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have insisted that the conferees be barred from addressing the debt ceiling, which needs to be increased by this fall to avoid a catastrophic default on U.S. obligations. McConnell, who has praised the use of the debt ceiling as a pressure point for extracting spending cuts despite the tactic’s negative impact on the nation’s credit rating, is one of many prominent Republicans who demanded “regular order” on the budget. In January, he called for a speedy budget conference because “that’s how things are supposed to work around here.”

Yet McConnell has joined the Cruz/Paul/Rubio wing of his caucus in blocking progress on the budget over the past 100 days. Spokespeople for the Republican Senate leader did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Monday, but by joining with members like Paul he’s wrapped his arms around the obstructionists’ spin. According to a sign Paul’s staff whipped up for a May floor speech, they’re “Preventing A Back Room Deal To Raise The Debt Limit” and counting the days without budget conferees as a mounting victory.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/01/2241941/republican-obstruction-of-budget-process-hits-100th-day/

That budget includes $100 billion in infrastructure spending.

<...>

The budget includes $100 billion of immediate infrastructure spending designed to boost the economy and raise $975 billion over the next decade through tax reform, which would eliminate various loopholes and tax expenditures.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/senate-passes-budget-after-all-night-debate.php

[leveymg]

8. Can you distill that down to a few lines of confusion and obfuscation?

How does any of that invalidate the points made in the OP, or even begin to address them?

[ProSense]

9. Sure,

"Can you distill that down to a few lines of confusion and obfuscation?"

...I was addressing this point:

People forget that Obama is fighting

for a budget less than what Paul Ryan was initially demanding.

So, even if the GOP caves without more concessions, WE.HAVE.LOST.

We’ve already essentially adopted that Ryan budget - Washington Post

I said: No, the clean CR being discussed is different from the Senate budget. (See the rest of the previous comment)

"How does any of that invalidate my points, or even begin to address them?"

I'm fairly certain the point to which I responded wasn't made by you.

[leveymg]

10. What is your response to the points made in the OP, anyway?

Would like to hear your thoughts on this: with the DoD interpretation that "just about all" the civilian DoD employees furloughed are "essential" and being called back, what leverage does that leave on our side of the fulcrum?

In the bigger picture of 10/17, exactly what is the GOP being asked to give up? What will Obama put (or take off) the table? Is there really any need to cut a deal at all, grand or petite, if the end result is really preordained, anyway?

[ProSense]

17. I don't know

Would like to hear your thoughts on this: with the DoD interpretation that "just about all" the civilian DoD employees furloughed are "essential" and being called back, what leverage does that leave on our side of the fulcrum?

In the bigger picture of 10/17, exactly what is the GOP being asked to give up? What will Obama put (or take off) the table? Is there really any need to cut a deal at all, grand or petite, if the end result is really preordained, anyway?

Congress passed this and the President signed it about a week ago. Republicans are flailing. This shutdown is not helping their cause.

They got nowhere with the government shutdown and are now threatening the debt ceiling. It's not playing well for them anywhere.

Cuccinelli is for a clean CR. So, sure, the House GOPs are winning. LOL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023783986

'Serious' Republicans unnerved not by shutdown damage to nation, but to party

by Hunter

Title of New York Times article: GOP Elders See Liabilities in Shutdown. Ya think?

The hard-line stance of Republican House members on the government shutdown is generating increasing anger among senior Republican officials, who say the small bloc of conservatives is undermining the party and helping President Obama just as the American people appeared to be losing confidence in him.

Oh noes, the nation was this close to realizing that Obamacare was worse than all the Hitlerz but then House Republicans had to stick their foot in their mouths and swallow them up to the hipbone. We get to hear once again that Republican senators are very, very angry at freshman senator Ted Cruz for telling House Republicans that their feet were delicious, but also that a conservative group aligned with Cruz has been attacking Republicans who voted contrary to him and that is probably the biggest crime of all:

Ms. Ayotte asked Mr. Cruz to disavow the group’s effort and demanded he explain his strategy. When he did not, several other senators — including Mr. Johnson, Mr. Coats and even Mitch McConnell, the minority leader — joined in the criticism of Mr. Cruz.

“It just started a lynch mob,” said a senator who was present.

We also hear that the scions of the party, people like Jeb! are worried that all of the rampant foot-eating is making the public think the party is a bunch of foot-eaters.

(Jeb!) Bush’s comments reflect what has become gospel among many Republican professionals: that the language and images projected by the Washington wing of the party are interfering with efforts to modernize.

You may note that none of the talk, and by that I mean jack-all, and by that I mean zero, is directed at how shutting down the government and hurting wide swaths of America is a Bad Thing. No, it's all about how it makes them look, and whether or not it will hurt their own careers, and which groups are printing up literature against them, and whether or not the Jeb Bushii of the party will now be saddled with coming up with a plausible sounding excuse as to why their party continues to devolve into self-cannibalism while attempting to blow the usual smoke about how the party will change, pinky swear, if we just vote for one more batch of the people waving their knives and forks around. Whether or not this or that group of perfectly innocent and by-golly necessary federal workers start losing their homes when the next round of paychecks does not come is of no interest whatsoever—the problem for Serious Republicans is all about how all of that might make Serious Republicans look bad.

Given that any group of Serious House Republicans could end this entire episode, and in vote after vote cannot be bothered, it should be abundantly clear that there are no Serious House Republicans. Given that any of these other non-House Serious Republicans could be doing considerably more to rein the cannibals in and have pointedly not, in the years that led up to this moment, it should be clear that there are no Serious Republicans outside of the House either. This will end only when House Republicans have so cannibalized each other as to have left not even the smallest pretense of seriousness behind, and heaven knows that none of the stories already coming out about the damage being done to the wider nation has budged them so far.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/04/1244185/--Serious-Republicans-unnerved-not-by-shutdown-damage-to-nation-but-to-party

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023785863

[leveymg]

19. I really don't think this whole thing has been about Obamacare.

Actual outcome is that both sides are mobilizing their bases for a confrontation over other issues that neither has the time to resolve before 10/17. There will be a CR. There simply has to be. So, what's the point unless, as some have suggested -- and I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest this -- the President and party leaders see this as an opportunity to line up parts of an otherwise unacceptable deal under the threat of yet another budget "crisis".

The way this is playing out, it doesn't exactly instill public trust in the system and its players. If I were an Institutionalist, like Obama, I'd be plenty worried. Hell, I am worried . . .

[leveymg]

37. In terms of points on the board, I'm not sure we're really ahead.

It's a two-fer. They got austerity w/out even having to vote for it

The method chosen -- a series of partial (and selective) gov't shutdowns that take effect if both sides don't agree to the terms -- serve that purpose perfectly. The GOP got what they want. They really don't have to get any changes to ACA to win.

How are we to make them pay a high political price? With the Pentagon fully open for business on Monday, and much of the "non-essential" parts of the federal government remaining closed, at least until 10/17, they're way ahead on points.

BTW: this engineered crisis serves fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks in both parties perfectly well. Why would they want to change a thing? The means are the ends.

[riderinthestorm]

52. Something like 97% of the EPA is furloughed

Headstart, Meals on Wheels and other social safety net programs already on life support from the sequestration are now effectively shut down, budget offices who calculate non-partisan critiques are shut down....

I could go on and on but you already know that.

They've achieved their dream of drowning MOST of the government in a bathtub without having to take a single vote on it.

The only sliver of hope is that they've voted to pay the furloughed workers back pay during the shut down. I'm hoping that means they do mean to some day bring these folks back to work.

But of course that's at sequestration levels of funding...

[leveymg]

55. But of course that's at sequestration levels of funding... exactly. So, who wins? Austerians in

both parties. Win-Win.

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. Obama is an Austerian, is he not? So win, win for him?

[leveymg]

72. He's not a full-blown deficit hawk, obviously, but he's the one who continues to bring up

Chained CPI and related areas of "shared sacrifice" that might be traded away as part of a notional Grand Bargain. It's my impression that he's not an economist but approaches these issues like an intelligent corporate lawyer who has to argue an extremely complex case. To continue the metaphor, he's clearly in charge of the legal team, and a lot of people trust his judgement. However, as some economists such as Mr.Krugman will tell you, Obama may not fully grasp all the implications of the economic policy approaches he proposes (which is inevitable), and he doesn't seem overly-attached to any particular aspect of it (which is probably a good thing).

I do think, however, that he is willing to trade away some things that are of enormous importance to people who are living on the margins of poverty in America in order to obtain a Grand Bargain, that Obama clearly is convinced is important and is the only workable alternative given there is a divided government. Personally, I'm not sure such a deal is either feasible or desirable in the current environment.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Here is the picture:

Ryan's budget for 2014 was $1.095 trillion
The current "clean" CR the Democrats are demanding is $986 billion.

The Dems are asking for $109 billion LESS than Ryan's original budget and calling that a victory from which they will not budge.

Yes, Ryan conveniently helped them out by revising his budget to $967 billion, but sorry no, they caved.

Game, set and match to the GOP.

[ProSense]

15. Again, those are numbers. The CR is different from the Senate budget

which ends the sequestration.

[progressoid]

18. Yes, those are the Senate budget numbers.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=85472b9c-d850-41bd-91df-94a68aa5d5ff

When President Barack Obama first took office in 2009, his budget proposed $1.203 trillion in discretionary spending for FY 2014. The Senate CR is about $216 billion, or nearly 18 percent, lower than that. Actual enacted funding levels for FY 2010, when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, totaled $1.185 trillion in 2014 dollars. The Senate CR is about $200 billion below that, a cut of nearly 17 percent.

After the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives and offered a budget plan that proposed dramatic spending reductions. That plan, authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), envisioned FY 2014 funding levels at $1.095 trillion. Note that the funding in the current Senate-passed CR is about 10 percent less than the levels in the original Ryan budget

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/09/30/76026/the-senate-continuing-resolution-is-already-a-compromise/

[ProSense]

20. Yes,

I know: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023791304#post7

[leveymg]

38. Seems the Austerians won.

Or, what is the Silver Lining here?

[Kelvin Mace]

22. The CR the senate is demanding is for $986 billion

Ryan's original budget was $1.095 trillion. I see nothing in the current CR that ends the sequestration. The CR funds the government at sequestration levels.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/09/30/76026/the-senate-continuing-resolution-is-already-a-compromise/

I trust the explanation from CAP over the Dems'.

[ProSense]

24. Read the information at your link.

It explicitly states that the temporary CR is different from the Senate budget, and it links to the Senate budget.

[leveymg]

39. You seem to skip right over that point. The CR budget is lower than the Sequester. How did we win?

[leveymg]

16. Good point. How does the original Obama budget differ from the CR?

How do the further cuts break down between civilian and military?

[woo me with science]

32. Game, set, and match to corporate looters in *both* parties.

In your own words: "The Dems are asking for $109 billion LESS than Ryan's original budget and calling that a victory from which they will not budge."

[ProSense]

36. PPP--"GOP could lose the House in 2014"

"Game, set, and match to corporate looters in *both* parties."

The Republican shutdown of the Government is nearing a full week.

PPP--"GOP could lose the House in 2014"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023794379

Where Are The Anti-Shutdown Protests?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023766244



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023760563

[leveymg]

40. General disgust and revulsion at Budget Austerity by Default seems pretty much bipartisan.

Do you have evidence that this is really a net political gain that translates into a 17 vote shift in the House for us?

[ProSense]

44. Republicans' actions prove they're terrorists. They should lose big. Agree? n/t

[leveymg]

51. Those who are convinced of that are already convinced of that. Where's the net gain?

It doesn't matter what we think about it. We're already part of the choir.

[ProSense]

41. As for

"In your own words: "The Dems are asking for $109 billion LESS than Ryan's original budget and calling that a victory from which they will not budge.""

...that, why are you presenting Ryan's budget as better than the Dems? The clean CR being discussed is different from the Senate budget, which ends the sequestration.

The Senate-passed measure to keep the government operating represents an enormous compromise by progressives to avoid a damaging government shutdown. The Democrat-controlled Senate agreed to temporary funding levels that are far closer to the Republican-controlled House budget plan than they are to the Senate’s own budget for fiscal year 2014. Moreover, this concession is only the latest of many such compromises over the past several years.

The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a continuing resolution, or CR—a temporary funding measure meant to keep the government operating—that would set the relevant funding levels at an annualized total of $986 billion. That’s about $70 billion less than what the Senate endorsed as part of its comprehensive budget plan back in April. But that actually understates the extent of the compromise.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/09/30/76026/the-senate-continuing-resolution-is-already-a-compromise/

The President described the compromise CR passed by the Senate.

Now, I want everybody to understand what's happened, because sometimes when this gets reported on everybody kind of thinks, well, you know, both sides are just squabbling; Democrats and Republicans, they're always arguing, so neither side is behaving properly. I want everybody to understand what's happened here. The Republicans passed a temporary budget for two months at a funding level that we, as Democrats, actually think is way too low because we’re not providing help for more small businesses, doing more for early childhood education, doing more to rebuild our infrastructure. But we said, okay, while we’re still trying to figure out this budget, we’re prepared to go ahead and take the Republican budget levels that they proposed.

So the Senate passed that with no strings attached -- not because it had everything the Democrats wanted. In fact, it had very little that the Democrats wanted. But we said, let’s go ahead and just make sure that other people aren’t hurt while negotiations are still taking place.

President Obama's speech detailed Republican belligerence in causing the Government shutdown
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023782420

The Senate budget, which ends the sequestration, is being blocked. Warren talks about it here.

This piece is from July 1:

Republican Obstruction Of Budget Process Hits 100th Day

By Alan Pyke

Monday marks 100 days since the Senate passed a budget amid bipartisan praise of the open process. But initial Republican eagerness to work on a budget has given way to the obstructionism that’s defined the Senate minority under Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Over the past hundred days, Republicans have blocked 15 separate attempts to go to a budget conference with the House of Representatives. Now that the House and Senate have passed their own versions, each is supposed to appoint representatives to a committee that reconciles them into one bill that can be passed by each body and signed by the president.

The handful of Republicans who are blocking a conference on the 2014 budget cite a variety of reasons, including fears that the conference agreement would include a deal preventing another debt ceiling crisis. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have insisted that the conferees be barred from addressing the debt ceiling, which needs to be increased by this fall to avoid a catastrophic default on U.S. obligations. McConnell, who has praised the use of the debt ceiling as a pressure point for extracting spending cuts despite the tactic’s negative impact on the nation’s credit rating, is one of many prominent Republicans who demanded “regular order” on the budget. In January, he called for a speedy budget conference because “that’s how things are supposed to work around here.”

Yet McConnell has joined the Cruz/Paul/Rubio wing of his caucus in blocking progress on the budget over the past 100 days. Spokespeople for the Republican Senate leader did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Monday, but by joining with members like Paul he’s wrapped his arms around the obstructionists’ spin. According to a sign Paul’s staff whipped up for a May floor speech, they’re “Preventing A Back Room Deal To Raise The Debt Limit” and counting the days without budget conferees as a mounting victory.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/01/2241941/republican-obstruction-of-budget-process-hits-100th-day/

That budget includes $100 billion in infrastructure spending.

<...>

The budget includes $100 billion of immediate infrastructure spending designed to boost the economy and raise $975 billion over the next decade through tax reform, which would eliminate various loopholes and tax expenditures.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/senate-passes-budget-after-all-night-debate.php

[Shivering Jemmy]

4. If you say so

[Laelth]

5. You may be right.

Only time will tell. k&r for exposure.

-Laelth

[leveymg]

42. Sometimes, I really hate being right about things like this.

[Laelth]

54. Been there. Still doing that.

I continue to hope for the best.

Regards,

-Laelth

[n2doc]

6. The libertarian dream

No inspectors, no regulations being enforced, none of that egghead science being done. Just a big, well funded (up 18% in the last discussions) war machine. Only the NSA spy machine remains as a thorn in their side, and I am sure they can accept that once 'they' control the executive branch.

[leveymg]

11. Exactly. A military-industrial police state with liberal credentials. Almost a perfect blend of

both worlds.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Something BIG is in the works. I question how much Obama knows and or is in control.

Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2013, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I think the walk with Biden was to talk outside the ears of the Deep State.

My working theory is that the Deep State desperately wants to start WW III, Obama is on board for drone/cruise strikes, but no more, and Obama is running out of stall tactics.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. I see no holes in that theory.

Except that it is tinfoil paranoid and bat shit crazy. Really? He has to plan his moves with Biden outside of earshot of Deep State? Just giving you a hard time.

[Junkdrawer]

28. Thanks...

[leveymg]

43. Are you sure you're not just pulling cards out of the deck randomly?

[Junkdrawer]

59. Yep...

Arguing with trolls is pointless. So I just smile and say "Bless your heart."

As far as the OP is concerned, I think that political theater, followed by concession-painted-as-victory is on the mark, but excepting the Pentagon may also be connected to events in the works - some of which the President may not be privy to yet.

Reading Peter Dale Scott and he makes a convincing, well researched case that many of the events we think of as false-flag events were, in fact, events perpetrated by deep forces and purposely misinterpreted by said same forces to steer Presidents into actions they were resisting.

[leveymg]

60. I don't think the last Prez needed any bamboozling.

He had natural camouflage as one who lacked curiosity and had a talent for self-deception and ignoring the obvious. Prefect for the patsy role. This one doesn't have nearly as much plausible deniability, so it may be more difficult these days. Who knows.

[Junkdrawer]

61. The Cheney/Bush administration was the closest we ever got to direct rule by the Deep State.

They did some things even Nixon wouldn't do.

As for Obama, the people in the know are, I think, split as to whether he was deceived or exercising plausible deniability on the "Assad gassed those kids!" thing.

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandumimmediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised

....

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/

Either way, I don't think he can still make those claims without blushing. Note how page 13 those claims are now.

Which means that the cover for the Deep State is blown and, I'm afraid, their next move may be desperate.

[leveymg]

62. To the contrary, I think they (whoever that may be) are getting pretty much everything they want

Not desperate. Tickled pink. It's been almost too easy.

Just a little more trim around the sides.

[Junkdrawer]

63. Domestically, yes. Foreign policy wise, no.

Here's the thing: we're rapidly moving from a unipolar, "sole superpower" world, to a multi-polar world. One where foreign adventures entail brinkmanship, not just flimsy disguises.

The US has been spending our "defense" dollars on said foreign adventures, Russia and China have been spending their newly found wealth on rearmament. The balance of power is changing RAPIDLY. Hence my concerns that the Deep State is spoiling for WW III now, before the power shifts even more.

[Barack_America]

13. Read it more carefully.

This was after "liberal" interpretation of the law. It is a warning to the GOP not to fuck with the debt ceiling. There are "liberal" ways around that one too.

[progressoid]

21. Well, good.

I wasn't feeling too safe. Now, I can sleep at night knowing the military industrial complex won't be so negatively affected.

[cui bono]

23. Yep. I fear this is correct.

When they give the Republican House the right to pick and choose what gets paid they are effectively letting them have a sort of line item veto.

And by allowing these "loopholes" they are enabling the Tea Party.

[leveymg]

45. Tea Party Line Item Veto by Default - that captures it pretty well.

And, how again, are we winning this game?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. That is some pretty shitty analysis of this announcement

[leveymg]

49. Wanna explain what you mean by that?

[Mojorabbit]

76. I disagree. nt

[flamingdem]

27. I think the repukes get their azz handed to them

next week or so

[leveymg]

50. How will that happen?

[nebenaube]

53. nah,

They are getting ready to take their coats off so we can see the brown shirts.

[woo me with science]

29. K&R

[leveymg]

47. Thanks

[woo me with science]

30. kick

[leveymg]

48. Thnx

[woo me with science]

33. kick

[leveymg]

46. Thanks!

[grasswire]

57. kick nt

nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. I don't think you are supposed to notice that. n/t

[DevonRex]

64. LOL!!! That is the funniest post I have ever read on DU. Are you SURE this is

the place for you, assuming it wasn't satire of course...

That's what happens when two major operations are conducted that capture the two most wanted terrorists in the world.

If you haven't noticed, it accomplishes two other things as well. It actually does bring back the personnel we need to keep us safe - the exact people the GOP furloughed with the shutdown. They were wrong to shut the government down.

Then the Republicans attempted to turn that back around on President Obama, by saying HE was the cause of America being vulnerable to a terrorist attack right now., President Obama has TAKEN THAT TALKING POINT AWAY IN SPECTACULAR FASHION BY SENDING THE SEALS IN TO CAPTURE TERRORISTS, THUS BRINGING DOD BACK TO WORK. BOO FUCKING YAH.

[leveymg]

65. Glad you got the humor in this.

But, seriously, Ms. Rex, what did these operations in Libya and Somalia have to do with political theater and the budget impasse? Do you really want to make that connection, too?

I wouldn't have suggested that, but I guess you got there first. Credit is all yours. Take home the Game Ball.

[DevonRex]

66. Why delay an operation because of the lazy Republicans?

A perfect operation like that has been planned for months. It's execited when everything looks favorable for a successful mission. The other results are icing on the cake.

Anyone who even tries to act like the mission was done in haste to score political points must be a Republican or a Libertarian. Or Ted Cruz, whatever the fuck he is.

We'll just laugh at them. Poor things just don't know who they're up against.

[leveymg]

67. Not sure it all went off like clockwork, particularly in Somalia

But, I'm glad they got al-Libi.

I agree both missions had been in the planning stages for months and this wasn't just Wag the Dog.

[DevonRex]

68. There'll always be something

that gets a little harried. I can't even imagine the training that lets them get out of those situations pretty routinely. I can imagine the fatigue and pain, though.

I wonder if President Obama can sign an EO saying Congress doesn't get paid until after the shutdown just like federal employees. It's kind of hard to shop for groceries now on the promise of back pay later. We're doing fine thanks to savings and good credit. But others aren't doing as well. Especially younger workers who still live paycheck to paycheck, and those living in high cost areas with more dependants to care for.

[leveymg]

69. I hope this doesn't go on through 10/17. Some may experience serious problems if it does.

How often do federal employees get paid - I assume monthly. Federal employees were paid in Sept. So, if the next payroll is at the end of October, presumably, there will be no interruption for most, if pay is made retroactively. Am I right about that?

The bigger, longer term problem it seems are the positions that will be cut by the CR, which is significantly lower than the projected 2014 budget.

[DevonRex]

71. Every 2 weeks.

Still no paycheck for the last 2 weeks of September for my husband. I did get my retirement check deposited, and it's monthly. It was done before the shutdown.

[leveymg]

73. Then, this is going to hurt a lot of people.

We've been going through some economic uncertainty and austerity of our own. It hurts a lot, and the pain doesn't ever seem to go away for very long in recent times.

[Octafish]

74. US shutdown a smokescreen for assault on Social Security, Medicare

Barry Grey
World Socialist Web Site, 3 October 2013

In an interview on day two of the partial shutdown of the US government, broadcast by the pro-business cable TV channel CNBC, President Barack Obama offered talks on cutting basic social programs such as Medicare and Social Security in return for Republican support for funding federal operations and raising the national debt ceiling.

Obama continued to reject any negotiations with House Republicans on a so-called “continuing resolution” to reopen the government that is tied to a delay in implementation of his health care overhaul. At the same time, he linked a “clean” funding bill to passage of legislation to raise the national debt ceiling before the current limit expires and the country goes into default, estimated by the Treasury Department for October 17.

Obama’s remarks added to mounting evidence that behind the appearance of partisan warfare in Washington, the two big business parties are planning to use a crisis produced by an extended government shutdown as a smokescreen for reaching a deal to impose historic attacks on the bedrock social programs left over from the New Deal and Great Society periods.
In the interview, Obama said he agreed on the need to continue eliminating “unnecessary” social programs and was ready to discuss cuts in “long-term entitlement spending.” He also said he would accept Republican demands that there be no increase in personal income tax rates.

SNIP...

In the previous manufactured crises of 2010, 2011 and 2012, Obama had offered to support cuts in cost-of-living raises for Social Security recipients and structural changes in Medicare, such as increasing the eligibility age and introducing means testing, along with sharp cuts in corporate taxes, as part of a broad bipartisan deficit deal.

However, no such deal on entitlement programs was reached. Instead, more than $2 trillion in cuts in domestic nondefense discretionary spending were mandated, bringing this category of social spending in the US—for education, housing, infrastructure, health and safety, the environment, culture—to its lowest level as a percentage of the gross domestic product since the 1950s.

CONTINUED...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/03/shut-o03.html



Yet the MIC and wars for profit prove themselves exempt.

[CrispyQ]

75. That was an incredibly depressing article,

but thanks for the link to the site, which I have never heard of. I agree with their assessment:

The current crisis has been artificially created for the cynical purpose of fostering more favorable political conditions to impose policies overwhelmingly opposed by the American people.