Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Network The Almighty Buck The Internet United States News

House Websites Jammed After Obama Debt Speech 1042

Posted by Soulskill
from the time-to-invest-in-some-stronger-hamsters dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "CNN reports that House switchboards have been flooded by phone calls — nearly twice the normal average — and hit with an unusual volume of constituent e-mails as voters voice their concern over the worsening debt-ceiling crisis. At least 104 of 279 congressional websites surveyed by CNN were down or had experienced slow connections on Tuesday, after President Obama's speech Monday night. In his address to the nation, Obama called on the American people to 'make your voice heard.' House Speaker John Boehner's website responded with a 'Server Too Busy' or 'Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)' message during parts of the day. His switchboard reported as many as 150-300 callers on hold, wanting to leave their thoughts for the speaker. House Chief Administrative Officer spokesman Dan Weiser said that lawmakers' websites and phone lines began to sag with the traffic on Monday night. 'Last night we had some website problems. ... There was some websites that were hosted by outside vendors that had slowness, sluggishness, people had trouble getting in. And that was rectified early this morning.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Websites Jammed After Obama Debt Speech

Comments Filter:
  • by elucido (870205) * on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:11AM (#36893220)

    This is extortion. This is anti-American. Rep Mike Lee Admits Extortion. [youtube.com]

    In specific Tea Party Republicans are threatening to put the nation into default, holding the entire US economy and millions of lives hostage to pass their amendment to the Constitution. They want the nation to default because it will boost recruitment into their militias. They want a civil war and are apparently beyond compromise. They cannot be reasoned with apparently.

    Who are these people? Before they called themselves the Tea Party they called themselves the John Birch Society. [wikipedia.org] and before they were called the John Birch society they called themselves the American Liberty League. [wikipedia.org]

    This is the same American Liberty League that was behind the Business Plot. [wikipedia.org]

    The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship. The history of that can be seen by watching this video. [youtube.com]

    Read about Smedley Darlington Butler and how he single handedly saved the nation from a coup. Now that we have a black President the forces looking to have a coup have grown stronger than ever. And these groups hate the feds and the government because these are the ones investigating them. The solution? Tax cuts, smaller government, which means less FBI investigations into them. [youtube.com]

    And btw I expect "them" to rate my post down into oblivion. Expect to see it rated as flamebait, overrated or something else.

     

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:20AM (#36893280)

      I can't rate you down, nor would I but the pace and phrasing of your post makes your post seem unbelievable or as some kind of crazy rant. I will read the source material you have presented and make my own judgements. These are serious accusations.

      But I do agree that the Tea Party Republicans are a problem with their impossibly rigid views and policies. Most, if not all, should be made to rethink their positions by having them voted out of their positions.

    • by Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:30AM (#36893378) Homepage
      The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship
      I forgot which US president gathered up US citizens and placed them in camps? Which president summarily executed American citizens without benefit of trial? Oh that's right it was FDR, sounds like we already had a dictatorship. As for worrying about FBI investigations, given how well the Justice Dept is handling Operation Gunrunner no one should worry about investigations for a while.
      • To be pedantic: No US president did that. FDR signed an order allowing the military to create exclusion zones. Race wasn't mentioned. It is critically important to remember that, because of it's far wider implications then an order to inter X people. Had race been specified, it never would have stood against the supreme court.

        It was General DeWitts order that interred the Japanese.

        IT can be argues that the Nihau incident was the tipping point from a military perspective, and fueled by the farmers of CA desire to rid the Japanese from farming.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @09:06AM (#36893810)

      You think that's bad? You can do something. It's worse watching from the sidelines. I'm in another country and can't do squat about the craziness you guys are starting by debating whether or not to continue paying your credit card bill's minimum payment. It's ultimately your business, of course, and you can tell the rest of the world to PFO (damn nosy neighbors meddling in USA internal affairs), but when the financial health of the USA is so intertwined with the rest of the world, it does become cause for legitimate global concern. The rest of the world cares about the decisions you guys are making, and the people in the USA should worry about this fact greatly. Because the obvious interpretation whether you do manage sort things out reasonably in the next little while or not will be: "Divest in the USA, because they can't keep their financial house in order anymore." As Obama has suggested, kicking the can down the road for 6 months and then going through this all over again, and again after that, does not bode well for future investment in the country.

      I'm sympathetic and hope you guys sort things out, but, sheesh, get your act together. The numbers don't lie. You have to do something. Get on with it. This is going to affect a large part of the world because the rest of us have banked on the until-now-unquestioned idea that the USA is a reliable country when it comes to paying off its financial debts. Change that impression and people will invest elsewhere instead. It will be disruptive in the short term, but it will eventually be sorted out, with the exception that the USA will lose the special status in the financial realm that it has had for roughly the last century.

      Let me put it another way. The rest of the world doesn't particularly care what the underlying political causes of this impasse are. That's your business. What we care about is that usually the USA has been able to put aside the worst kind of politics and do the right thing when necessary. You are a practical if fractious bunch, and that's why you are such a vibrant and successful democracy. If that willingness to put aside political differences for the sake of practicality has changed, well, a lot of things are going to be reassessed -- probably not in your favor. And that would be sad. Kind of like seeing your favorite uncle Sam succumb to dementia as they get older.

    • Your title "Rewrite the Constitution of face default!" is a great summary of the Tea Party's position. The irony being that this extortion violates the very constitution that they pretend to follow. Section 4 of the 14th amendment states "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

      John Boehner compared negotiating with President Obama t

    • by sp3d2orbit (81173)

      If you think there is any significant difference between Democrats and Republicans then you are as dumb as they hope you are.

      Both parties work for the banks. The same banks that finance their campaigns and finance the businesses that put them in power. The Republican Bush gave $750 billion dollars to his masters, then the Democrat Obama gave them another $800 billion. Why can't you see who benefits?

      The debt ceiling will be raised because the banks want it raised. An ever increasing share of tax money will f

  • by Nimey (114278) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:17AM (#36893266) Homepage Journal

    It seems like the more extreme Republicans that are running things in the House don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.

    Pay attention, kids: we're experiencing history! This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.

    • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:22AM (#36893302) Journal

      This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.

      If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline.

      • by Nimey (114278) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:28AM (#36893352) Homepage Journal

        Yes. On the other hand, people seem to want things like Social Security and Medicare, so a rational decision would be to raise taxes to pay for those things people want, and to reduce spending on things people don't want, such as unfunded wars to build friendly nations.

        • by hypergreatthing (254983) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:35AM (#36893428)

          People seem to want social security because they've paid into it their entire lives without having an alternative of opting out. It was supposed to be self sustainable.
          Look at the taxes over the past 50 years. Back in 1981 the top 5% of wealthy americans paid a 70% tax rate. How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings? Something is wrong with that. Look at all the tax breaks for the wealthy, lets start there. Then lets look at our out of control spending.

      • by dpilot (134227) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:31AM (#36893400) Homepage Journal

        If the spending problems were a general problem, and generally flagged, I'd have less problem. But it's not. The Republicans tend to show up as deficit hawks during every Democratic administration, but during Republican administrations such things go completely silent. Vice President Dick Cheney is on record as saying something to the tune that the deficit is irrelevant. During the GWB years the deficit spiked, due to tax cuts, 2 wars run "off the books", and the unfunded Medicare prescription drug coverage program.

        For the moment, I'm not commenting about deficit budgeting itself, or about any of the things done during the Bush/Cheney years. I'm simply commenting about the change-of-tune. This pattern of deficit-hawk behavior goes back before those 2 administrations, as well.

      • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:35AM (#36893440) Homepage

        If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline.

        Only if we don't tax enough to cover the cost of the spending. Plenty of countries have governments that spend far more than the US, but they make up for it by taxing more. And I'm not talking about Third World countries, I'm talking about places like Canada, Germany, and the UK.

        Another thing that I've noticed regularly in discussions of federal government budgets is that it's much easier to rail against "spending" than it is to pick out what would actually be cut. So what spending would you get rid of? Social Security and Medicare (which you probably have a family member collecting on right now)? The military? Food stamps? Unemployment insurance? Section 8 housing? Public schools for your kids? Environmental protection that keeps nearby businesses from making your home unlivable? OSHA or MSHA, which reduce dramatically your chance of death or injury on the job? Highways?

      • And increasing the debt ceiling only gives the addict a little more dope. It doesn't prevent the inevitable reckoning that we are on the verge of. The government has maxed out every credit card they have. The Federal government is broke and they want another credit card.
        • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:50AM (#36893608)

          And increasing the debt ceiling only gives the addict a little more dope. It doesn't prevent the inevitable reckoning that we are on the verge of. The government has maxed out every credit card they have. The Federal government is broke and they want another credit card.

          The only point of this D vs R debate is who is going to get the blame. It has nothing to do with changing the inevitable outcome. Thats what I find profoundly uninteresting about the whole topic... not really interested in who gets the blame, and its way too long until the next elections for it to have any effect. So, its all basically a bunch of noise.

          The titanic is headed full speed ahead into the iceberg. One side wants to increase speed to flank, so the coal men earn a little more money. The other side want to decrease speed to 3/4 to save coal, and to embarass the helmsman. Everyone is eventually gonna drown anyway.

          • Hey I like that analogy! One perspective was left out though. The helmsman refuses to steer away from the iceberg till the most affluent passengers agree to pay twice as much for their fares. Nobody hands over any extra cash the captain is content to go down with the ship. Again, we're all going down.
      • by dcollins (135727)

        "If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline."

        The spending would be fine if we actually paid for it.

    • Politicians don't believe in anything (yes, that includes your guy too, whoever he is). The only thing they're thinking about is the next election. And, in this case, Republicans have a vested interest in keeping the economy in the shitter through the end of 2012 (because it hurts Obama's reelection potential). In other words, they're not religious, they're just immoral opportunists who won't hesitate to throw the entire country under the bus just to advance their own short-term political interests.

  • too big to fail? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by C0R1D4N (970153) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:22AM (#36893304)
    Our system of government was not setup for this large of a population. When the countru was founded there were many who thought the constittuent:representative ratio was too high and it is faaaar worse now. It is time to dissolve the union and form 50 new nations.
  • by OzPeter (195038) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:23AM (#36893314)
    And those limits can be overwhelmed by a large response.

    Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?
    • And those limits can be overwhelmed by a large response.

      Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?

      I think the buried lead is that these systems weren't even built with the expectation that they'd be used by a significant number of voters.

  • Oh Great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xacid (560407) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:30AM (#36893380) Journal

    Now we're going to Slashdot them too!

  • Great filters (Score:4, Informative)

    by overshoot (39700) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:43AM (#36893548)
    It won't make a damn bit of difference.

    The Congressional filtering system is extremely efficient. No matter what you say, somehow you're always supporting the position that the Congresscritter has already taken.

    I've been writing to "my" Congressional "representatives" for almost forty years, and even when I've bluntly said that Senator Bozo has a severe case of craniorectal insertion, I get a letter back thanking me for supporting him.

    • by Machtyn (759119)
      I don't know. My wife recently wrote our Obama Rubber Stamp... I mean Congrescritter. The letter she got back was essentially, "You're one of those people, aren't you? Thank you for your interest in 'your' government, but we know what's good for you."
  • by Danathar (267989) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:46AM (#36893576) Journal

    So we should march on D.C. this week? What should I put on my sign? "More Debt NOW!"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Uh, we already have the debt. We already spent the money. That part was easy, all those trillion dollar packages that nobody read had a whole lot of support.

      This is deciding whether or not we are going to pay the bills we already owe. That is why not paying would be so catastrophic.

      It's not a bankrupt nation, it's a deadbeat nation.

      Call your mortgage holder, tell them you have the money to pay, but you just arent going to anymore, and fuck them. It's a lot different than calling your mortgage broker a

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @09:19AM (#36894010)

    ...it's too late for the pebbles to vote. Regardless of your fiscal outlook, the fact is the debt ceiling must be raised, simply because of economic inertia. Fiscal conservatives may be correct that less government spending is good - but that perspective doesn't matter today, as our economic difficulties are the result of decisions years, maybe decades past. If you want to avoid raising debt ceilings in the future (a goal I actually support), that's fine - we can have a discussion on the best fiscal policy to pursue over the next ten years in order to achieve that. But *today* is not the time to debate *this* particular ceiling. That discussion should've happened ten years ago. Playing with the cap today is irresponsible at best, and cynical exploitation of economic trouble created, in part, by an ex-president from your own party, to secure a victory in 2012 ... well, not even at "worst", as that's pretty much exactly what the Republicans are doing.

    The point is, you don't change economic trends overnight. The necessity of raising the debt ceiling cannot be altered today, even with the best intentions. I want to stay balanced and not single a particular side for blame, but it seems that the politicking is all about discrediting the sitting president to hurt his incumbent standing in 2012, rather than any form of principled economic disagreement.

    Btw: captcha: "defraud"

  • by Petron (1771156) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @09:54AM (#36894448)
    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

    Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

    Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

    And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

    Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.


    Senator Barack Obama
    Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
    March 16, 2006

    -- Amazing how things change...
    • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @10:49AM (#36895308)

      Yes. Now what about all the Republicans who cheerfully voted 7 times to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was in power now refusing to do so without massive budget cuts, or in some cases at all.

      Hypocrisy is the mother's milk of politics.

    • by Xyrus (755017)

      I doubt anything has changed. The president does not control the debt ceiling. The president does not control the budget. The president does not control the money. It's congress. The president can veto or accept what congress provides, but that's it. He can get them to come together for talks. He can plead. He can bargain. He can demand. But it all comes down to congress.

      It's very likely that he still feels the same way. But do you think he could get the tax revenues and spending cuts he would like to see i

  • Campaign Promises (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sean0michael (923458) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @10:24AM (#36894844)
    The Tea-Party Republicans ran on platforms of cutting spending and lowering the debt. Can you blame them for not turning on their constituents and breaking promises to pass legislation their home districts are against? I thought we were tired of politicians making campaign promises, then breaking them in office.
    • by torstenvl (769732)

      If my mom promises to lose weight, she doesn't break that promise by buying jeans that fit her. She needs to reduce the imbalance between the calories she takes in and the calories she burns. She is already a given size and has already planned out a healthy calorie-reduction diet. She needs jeans that will be possible to wear on that plan. If my mom were to buy only a size 5, and threaten to kill herself if she bought a larger size, and also threaten to kill herself if she can't fit into the size 5, then ye

    • by kb_one (615092) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @11:55AM (#36896650)
      Because these people represent a minority of the overall public. Yet they are exercising disproportionate control over critical government decisions. They have a right to their opinions and to represent those who voted for them. However, they've found a procedural tactic to put our society and the world in general at financial risk so that they can ram their beliefs down the throats of the majority. These people made promises that don't stand up to the real world. I don't really mind and often expect this from politicians but it is scary when people care more about re-election than maintaining the financial credibility of the United States of America during one of the greatest recessions in history.

The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago

Working...