House passes bill to give retroactive pay to furloughed...

[USN_Hokie]

...fed employees. It passed 407-0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/1 ... -slimdown/

[nolanvt]

...fed employees. It passed 407-0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/1 ... -slimdown/

This was a lock the whole time.

[awesome guy]

...fed employees. It passed 407-0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/1 ... -slimdown/

So why aren't they working? They're getting paid to so, where is the work product?

[VoiceOfReason]

So why aren't they working? They're getting paid to so, where is the work product?

I'm with you. Back to work! Of course, if that happened how would the government be shut down exactly?

[HokieFanDC]

So why aren't they working? They're getting paid to so, where is the work product?

I'm with you. Back to work! Of course, if that happened how would the government be shut down exactly?

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate is just allowing the House to effectively defund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.
It would shift the pain to the Senate, somewhat. Of course, if they are really interested in showing that they are serious, they would vote on the clean CR, and when it fails, then they can push the Senate to vote on their proposals. Until they vote on the bill presented to them, it's silly to complain about the other side not voting on the bills they passed, after failing to even vote on the first bill.

[USN_Hokie]

So why aren't they working? They're getting paid to so, where is the work product?

I'm with you. Back to work! Of course, if that happened how would the government be shut down exactly?

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate is just allowing the House to effectively defund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.
It would shift the pain to the Senate, somewhat. Of course, if they are really interested in showing that they are serious, they would vote on the clean CR, and when it fails, then they can push the Senate to vote on their proposals. Until they vote on the bill presented to them, it's silly to complain about the other side not voting on the bills they passed, after failing to even vote on the first bill.

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate House is just allowing the House Senate to effectively defund fund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are aren't OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.

You're just picking one side of a circular argument.

[HokieFanDC]

So why aren't they working? They're getting paid to so, where is the work product?

I'm with you. Back to work! Of course, if that happened how would the government be shut down exactly?

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate is just allowing the House to effectively defund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.
It would shift the pain to the Senate, somewhat. Of course, if they are really interested in showing that they are serious, they would vote on the clean CR, and when it fails, then they can push the Senate to vote on their proposals. Until they vote on the bill presented to them, it's silly to complain about the other side not voting on the bills they passed, after failing to even vote on the first bill.

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate House is just allowing the House Senate to effectively defund fund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are aren't OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.

You're just picking one side of a circular argument.

No, I'm not. The CR funds the entire govt operations.

[awesome guy]

So why aren't they working? They're getting paid to so, where is the work product?

I'm with you. Back to work! Of course, if that happened how would the government be shut down exactly?

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate is just allowing the House to effectively defund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.
It would shift the pain to the Senate, somewhat. Of course, if they are really interested in showing that they are serious, they would vote on the clean CR, and when it fails, then they can push the Senate to vote on their proposals. Until they vote on the bill presented to them, it's silly to complain about the other side not voting on the bills they passed, after failing to even vote on the first bill.

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate House is just allowing the House Senate to effectively defund fund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are aren't OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.

You're just picking one side of a circular argument.

No, I'm not. The CR funds the entire govt operations.

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

[HokieFanDC]

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate is just allowing the House to effectively defund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.
It would shift the pain to the Senate, somewhat. Of course, if they are really interested in showing that they are serious, they would vote on the clean CR, and when it fails, then they can push the Senate to vote on their proposals. Until they vote on the bill presented to them, it's silly to complain about the other side not voting on the bills they passed, after failing to even vote on the first bill.

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate House is just allowing the House Senate to effectively defund fund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are aren't OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.

You're just picking one side of a circular argument.

No, I'm not. The CR funds the entire govt operations.

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

OK, so it's a farce. Take a vote on it, and when the farce doesn't pass the House, then offer up an alternative. The CR that the Senate passed is what they should be "negotiating". And by negotiating, I mean that House votes. If the bill fails, the House can go back to the Senate, say "Look, this farce won't pass the House as it is, we need to make some changes. Here are our suggestions".
That's the negotiating power they have, but only if it fails the House. The members of the House are supposed to vote for their constituents. If it fails the House, then the will of the people is that the CR is not good enough. If it passes, then the will of the people is that it is good enough. Until a vote is taken, then the House can't reasonably speak to what is right and wrong, or what America wants, blah, blah.

[awesome guy]

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate is just allowing the House to effectively defund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.
It would shift the pain to the Senate, somewhat. Of course, if they are really interested in showing that they are serious, they would vote on the clean CR, and when it fails, then they can push the Senate to vote on their proposals. Until they vote on the bill presented to them, it's silly to complain about the other side not voting on the bills they passed, after failing to even vote on the first bill.

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate House is just allowing the House Senate to effectively defund fund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are aren't OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.

You're just picking one side of a circular argument.

No, I'm not. The CR funds the entire govt operations.

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

OK, so it's a farce. Take a vote on it, and when the farce doesn't pass the House, then offer up an alternative. The CR that the Senate passed is what they should be "negotiating". And by negotiating, I mean that House votes. If the bill fails, the House can go back to the Senate, say "Look, this farce won't pass the House as it is, we need to make some changes. Here are our suggestions".
That's the negotiating power they have, but only if it fails the House. The members of the House are supposed to vote for their constituents. If it fails the House, then the will of the people is that the CR is not good enough. If it passes, then the will of the people is that it is good enough. Until a vote is taken, then the House can't reasonably speak to what is right and wrong, or what America wants, blah, blah.

You spin me around, like a record round and round.

[TheH2]

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

Is that really the case? I thought the budget passed by the senate (and would be passed by CR) including cuts to discretionary spending. See link below (Washington Post).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ce-is-not/

[133743Hokie]

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

Is that really the case? I thought the budget passed by the senate (and would be passed by CR) including cuts to discretionary spending. See link below (Washington Post).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ce-is-not/

Same here. I thought a CR by definition was to continue the current funding, which as of now includes the sequester

[HokieFanDC]

Of course, the reason is that if you do that, then the Senate House is just allowing the House Senate to effectively defund fund the parts of the govt they don't like while keeping the ones they are aren't OK with (and that make people mad) functioning.

You're just picking one side of a circular argument.

No, I'm not. The CR funds the entire govt operations.

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

OK, so it's a farce. Take a vote on it, and when the farce doesn't pass the House, then offer up an alternative. The CR that the Senate passed is what they should be "negotiating". And by negotiating, I mean that House votes. If the bill fails, the House can go back to the Senate, say "Look, this farce won't pass the House as it is, we need to make some changes. Here are our suggestions".
That's the negotiating power they have, but only if it fails the House. The members of the House are supposed to vote for their constituents. If it fails the House, then the will of the people is that the CR is not good enough. If it passes, then the will of the people is that it is good enough. Until a vote is taken, then the House can't reasonably speak to what is right and wrong, or what America wants, blah, blah.

You spin me around, like a record round and round.

Not trying to confuse you. It's a pretty simple 2 step process. What part don't you agree with, or don't you understand?

[awesome guy]

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

Is that really the case? I thought the budget passed by the senate (and would be passed by CR) including cuts to discretionary spending. See link below (Washington Post).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ce-is-not/

That's not what the Sunday morning guys were saying.

[TheH2]

Yes, you are. The "clean CR" is a farce anyway because it undoes the sequester and adds more spending.

Is that really the case? I thought the budget passed by the senate (and would be passed by CR) including cuts to discretionary spending. See link below (Washington Post).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ce-is-not/

That's not what the Sunday morning guys were saying.

Which Sunday morning guys? I'm pretty sure it isn't exactly the sequestered budget, but I'm pretty sure it is also reduced funding that is in line with the sequester. I've yet to see anything different. Nor have I heard republicans say otherwise.

We all know this has nothing to do with money. If it did they probably wouldn't pay government workers for doing nothing. Of course, everything they have done to this point shows that it has nothing to do with actual budget spending.

[Homebrew]

Politics. The vast majority of Federal Workers would like to be at their jobs, IMHO.