US Federal Government Shutdown

I am not sure whether this merits its own thread, so if moderators deem it unnecessary, please feel free to close it. :bow:

However: I feel that a story of this magnitude deserves to be treated separately.

Essentially this thread arises out of my curiosity regarding how the US Government shutdown is perceived, both in the USA and around the world. It has been presented to me, by the news organisations which I trust, that the majority of Americans, even those who identify as Republicans, view the impasse as mindless obstructionism on the part of the Republican party. Similarly, this media suggests that this scenario can only end badly for the Republican party, whether they back down swiftly or not.

However, I am well aware that my own predispositions and the media organisations which I trust would naturally assume that this is the case. So, how do Orgahs in the US feel? Do you, particularly those who oppose the ACA, view this as a legitimate tactic, or do you think that this is an exercise in futility? Has this changed your opinion regarding the party, or made you less or more likely to vote Republican?

More generally, do Orgahs feel that there are any, theoretical, circumstances in which a party should, or could legitimately, shut down the government in an effort to force their opponents to repeal a legitimately passed statute?

Looking to the future, how does this bode for the debt ceiling?

As a personal anecdote, a friend (who has zero interest in contemporary politics) today stated that this shutdown, after the omnipresent risk of being gunned down, was a key reason why she could never bring herself to move to the States, despite the large number of academic opportunities.

I look forward to your responses. :bow:

I don't know enough about American politics, what I am absolutily positively sure of is that it's ubsolutily wouldn't happen here, all politicians here understand is demanding more taxes. So without knowing nearly enough to not make a fool out of myself I kinda have to salute shutting down the government instead.

Like I said in another thread, it's apparently not front page news here anymore, so I'm not sure about the magnitude.

As for whether it's a good or a bad thing, well, it is not very surprising given the attitude of some Americans and especially republican politicians. Americans even wanted this to happen since they voted for a majority of republicans in congress, no?

So it's all good, not like anyone expects the government to do anything right anyway and Obama needs to be stopped because he is only the elected president.

Seems like business as usual.

how it's perceived over here?

Republican´s be trippin'.

As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.

As a non-American, I just see this as typical partisan US politics.

Looking at the past 40 years, I'm surprised it took 17 since the last one to recur.

It's interesting that half of all furloughed employees come from the DoD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.

---

And they are now one of the most succesfull countries in the world and surroundings. Politics are just petty games, our minister of defence is schooled to be a secretary, our state-secretary of finances never graduated for anything but high-school (havo, second lowest one, you can't even enter an university with it, too stupid, but oh so good at working with her ellbows and putting up weight) and she didn't even have economy in her package, our minister of foreign affairs is the minister of looking good on pictures where he can be jerking himself of after shake hands, etc etc.

Screw it all, we would be so much better without them.

When the world economy is barely starting to recover, this was the last thing we needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.

As a non-American, I just see this as typical partisan US politics.

---

We had a government of running affairs.

We also still had a Flemish, Brussels, Walloon and Germanophone government (:wall:)

Anyway, even during one of our deepest recent political crisises, none of our governmental institutions shut down during that period. Everything continued as normal.

How that makes Belgium worse than the US in this regard, is beyond my comprehension.

Even when playing the pettiest of petty games, our politicians aren't that irresponsible as to shut governmental services down (people pay taxes for those to WORK, not to be shut down) and put so many civil servants without income just like that.

"World leaders," they call themselves. Bravo. Congratulations :applause:

Bullying the entire world with military might but not giving a damn about the common man; nice political parties you have over there.

Calm down, Andres, their financial system is purely based on and adjusted to personal greed, none of this should really surprise you.
Everything is working as intended.

Not to forget that Europe uses the same system as a basis and has just amended it a bit here and there.

Re the shutdown, the most important thing to understand is that this is less an inter-party conflict than an intra-party conflict. Anything you read that doesn't make that distinction is, by definition, moronic.

Pretty good explanation here.

Or as a popular article yesterday put it:

Those who keep talking as if there are two sides to this, when there are not, are as much a part of the vandalism as Ted Cruz. Obama has played punctiliously by the constitutional rules – two elections, one court case – while the GOP has decided that the rules are for dummies and suckers, and throws over the board game as soon as it looks as if it is going to lose by the rules as they have always applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.

As a non-American, I just see this as typical partisan US politics.

---

As Andres pointed out, it's quite different situations. No goverment in Belgium meant that no new decisions could be made, while current system is running as normal. In the US, it means that there's quite a bit of people that will have forced unpaid vacations until it's resolved.

Personally I think the idea of "crash and burn and then rebuild" has gotten out of hand. It's some kind of block on what crash and burn really means, and instead it seems to be treated as "minor issue that goes on the insurance or something".

We're witnessing a party that's been running out of ideas, dropped their responsibillity and instead spends the time lashing out on everything the don't like .

Am I right in thinking that the UK's civil service runs independently of Parliament, so that the government's services continue regardless of any disputes between the politicians?

Pretty good explanation of why the House leadership can't control the chaos.

What we're seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power. It’s not so much about Boehner. It’s things like the end of earmarks. They move away from Tom DeLay and they think they're improving the House, but now they have nothing to offer their members. The outside groups don't always move votes directly but they create an atmosphere of fear among the members. And so many of these members now live in the conservative world of talk radio and tea party conventions and Fox News invitations. And so the conservative strategy of the moment, no matter how unrealistic it might be, catches fire. The members begin to believe they can achieve things in divided government that most objective observers would believe is impossible. Leaders are dealing with these expectations that wouldn't exist in a normal environment. [...]

When you get the members off the talking points you come to a simple conclusion: They don't face consequences for taking these hardline positions. When you hear members talk candidly about their biggest victory, it wasn’t winning the House in 2010. It was winning the state legislatures in 2010 because they were able to redraw their districts so they had many more conservative voters. The members get heat from the press but they don't get heat from back home.

They shut down the us government, and military fetishist Tom Clancy dies...

coincidence?

when will the madness stop??

I thought this was a holiday? I mean they are still getting paid in congress and senate.

This is interesting: One of the writers at NRO—deep inside the conservative media echo chamber—attempts to talk sense to the loonies. Good luck, Yuval!

Republicans did not do nearly well enough in the last election to enact legislation that would repeal Obamacare. In order to repeal that law and attempt an effective reform of our health-care system along conservative lines, they will need to do better in the next election and the one to follow. To that end, they can take several kinds of steps with regard to Obamacare in the meantime: steps that would weaken the law (by highlighting its faults or disabling some of its elements) and ultimately make it easier to replace; steps that would weaken the law’s supporters (by further connecting them to the law in the public’s mind and forcing them to defend its least popular elements) and ultimately make them easier to replace; and steps that would strengthen the law’s opponents (by clearly identifying them as opponents of an unpopular measure and champions of a more appealing approach) and help them gain more public support.

In my view (shared with all who would listen to no avail, for what it’s worth) the original defund strategy was not well suited to doing any of these things. [...]

[Republicans'] control of the House has allowed them to put some restraints on public spending, to significantly reduce the deficit, and to prevent the enactment of more progressive fiascos like those that were enacted in President Obama’s first two years in office, but it is not sufficient to allow the repeal of Obamacare. Control of the Senate would surely allow them to do more to pull the country to the right (hopefully including some meaningful entitlement reform, which is essential) and that would be very important and welcome, but, given that the president will not be eager to see his chief legislative accomplishment undone, it is likely not to be enough to allow for the full repeal of Obamacare. These may be hard facts, but they seem like fairly straightforward ones. Elections matter, and Republicans did not do enough to win the last one.

The shutdown is nothing. The problem is if this rolls into the debt ceiling issue two weeks from now. The Tea Party is insane enough to actually blow that one up too.

Quote:

---

Step 1.) Shut down the government - This is as far as some of them thought it out, and for some this is a goal in and of itself. A shut-down government is the ultimate form of de-regulation. I'm sure some are even deluded into thinking it is a state of affairs they can make permanent.

Step 2.) Shift the blame. This is so smart, what they've been doing by trying to fund the government bit by bit and piece by piece. This puts the initiative with the Tea Party, makes Obama look like the bad guy (because in typical spock-like fashion he wants the whole logic-pie or nothing at all), and also starts putting dividers into the public. The military and veterans funding stuff is huge--these demographics don't need much more incentive to lean to the far right. So far the dems and Obama are falling right into the trap. The longer this goes on, and the more Obama tries to look tough, the better off the Tea Party will be.

This isn't really about the Tea Party trying to expand its popularity. They are already popular enough, especially with demographics that actually wield influence and power in society (police, military, the ultra-rich, etc.). This whole thing is about making a statement to the base, the "foot soldiers" of the Tea Party, if you will. The lower or middle-class sorts who get their news from the echo chamber, FOX or blogs or whatever. When all is said and done, the only thing that will be different from before the shut-down is that the Tea Party as a whole will be more galvanized and feel more at odds with the existing power structure.

---

While it will galvanize the base, I'm not so sure that it will actually add very much to it. The lines are already set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The shutdown is nothing. The problem is if this rolls into the debt ceiling issue two weeks from now. The Tea Party is insane enough to actually blow that one up too.

---

Well maybe if the Tea Party succeeds in destroying our credit rating, and makes the existing debt ruinously expensive, and plunges the world markets into a nosedive ...

... then maybe you'll listen to them and see they were right all along!

That is fine. And would have easier to do in the post Reagan years with Communism having collapsed.

But the cosequences of hitting the credit rating will hurt the US more then Gitmo or pissing on corpses or saying how you will do whatever you want with no consequences.

This will potentially have a long term effect in diminishing the US Dollar as it will no longer be viewed as the stable one for investors to dump into when things get turbulent in the markets.

Steadier large volume currencies have started to appear and the markets might hedge with some of the money being parked in China and the EU. That is a much larger impact then most people understand.

If that parking strategy works it will be another stake in the American economy. Massive debt with increased interest rates due to a lower rating and a dollar that plunges in time of lacking confidence instead of going up.

It is kind of hard for western countries to understand what the problem with USAnian politics is.

You pay taxes and ever so often you get a voice as to where that money should go.

... What would be the problem?



Oh well, USAnian politics in a nutshell. It's all about the "NOW!"

Granted, however, USAnians don't have much history or even shared empathy, like other actually REAL nations. Makes it kind of hard to blame them for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Or as a popular article yesterday put it:

Those who keep talking as if there are two sides to this, when there are not, are as much a part of the vandalism as Ted Cruz. Obama has played punctiliously by the constitutional rules – two elections, one court case – while the GOP has decided that the rules are for dummies and suckers, and throws over the board game as soon as it looks as if it is going to lose by the rules as they have always applied.

---

That about sums up the entire situation.

I don't know about you guys, but I feel 2 days freer already! I hope this goes on for months.

Honestly, I'm very timid about messing with the debt ceiling. I don't see why we can't just keep the shutdown for months and increase the debt ceiling in 2 weeks without much of an issue. Hey, shaking this Piñata has already caused the Senate to open up to tax reform talks. Who knows what else we can get them to open up to. I don't care about obamacare at this point, but it isn't too much to ask that they give the poor citizen some relief.. Just until the obvious kinks are worked out. If they don't want to even discuss that possibility, let's see if we can get them to cave somewhere else. Maybe somewhere that matters.

So far, the only people who have been bothered by the shutdown are Democrats and government employees, those who suckle on the teat of government. We could lose all of their votes without losing any votes.

I've never met a public employee who would vote for the ones who are looking to personally send them a pink slip.

You mean those who work for a living? The government should be funded in a series of piecemeal bills, similar to those suggested by the House GOP. We were looking to fund Veterans benefits because they've earned their keep and deserve the benefits, Democrats rejected the idea because they want to play the game longer. Let's play. Fund food stamps and disability benefits next. I'd love to see democrats table that bill.

If you want to dismantle the Federal government, secession and conventional war won't work. You use the tools available to you at the time.

Yep. Drinking the kool aid. We've had no leverage for years. This is tough leverage. At this point, I loathe the federal system and what it has become. We finally have the votes to hack the thing up a bit. We have until the mid-terms to really gum things up for the other guys and extract some blood atonement before we lose the house. If we set the federal government back a few years it will just be that much weaker vs state power, where things will need to get done. Let's make these months count.

Or maybe I'm just kidding. Or maybe not? Attempts at moderation are only useful with friends in real life. On the internet, we can speak our mind, or even the thing that we wish was our mind. My own initial reaction was to cave. It almost always is, but that's why I make 45k a year and will never be able to buy a home, because I don't cut throats and steamroll other people. My representatives in DC can do that for me.

Let's start taking chances with the system that we don't believe in.

I personally see a tangible benefit from a government shutdown, reduced DC traffic is great, but this can't go on for too long without serious damage. The debt limit vote in two weeks is more important, and it will be interesting to see how it all comes together (I believe the non-insane GOP reps will push that through).

An interesting side effect of the shutdown - until this gets resolved there are no more background checks for firearm purchases, which means no more firearm purchases. I wonder how well that will go over in the red states. ~D

What happens if the rest of the system calls the Tea Party out?

If they reverse the situation now and go budget + debt ceiling are a tied issue (which of all the bills out there would have to be the most closely aligned unlike pork barrel additives).

Tea Party can come and play or cause the USA to not pay its dues.

Credit rating dips and therefore interest rates go up a couple of points maybe 0.1%
US dollar loses its gloss as a steady bet therefore money is diverted out of it to more stable safe economies. Means the ability to service debt goes down as the USD dips a couple of percentage points. This is more damaging then the credit rating slip as it changes people's thinking and attitudes towards the dollar. Hearts and minds of stock brokers are more fickle and the outcome more damaging then fundamentalists.

So that is a mix of internal and external.

Debt ceiling not being raised means that essential government employees aren't getting payed either. That includes the military and I expect it would have a knock on effect in funding and infrastructure to states.

Suddenly it is not just non essential white collar government employees its also all the employees. It is also all those who rely on contracts to the government and their employees will feel the pinch.

This will hit everyone in every economy and there is no way tea party members will be immune to this. Mind you their survivalist factions will be having wet dreams and spam.

Listen, if we are just crazy policy ignoramus', let's let this thing run for months. You'll show the country how truly awful we are and maybe they'll throw us out of office in one fell swoop. Problem solved, we won't be able to run for dog catcher. Small price to pay, right?

Are you against funding them piece by piece?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Are you against funding them piece by piece?

---

I thought the piecemeal approach was a pretty clever idea. The administration uses their shutdown theater to try to highlight how terrible the shutdown is, the GOP offers to pass continuing resolution funding what they highlight, and Democrats vote it down. It shows how unserious they are.

Speaking of shutdown theater- they actually turned out park police and other staffers to try to keep WWII vets from visiting the WWII memorial on the national mall. Mind you, the reasoning was that it was closed because of the shutdown- but the memorial is open-air and normally open to the public 24/7 unstaffed. Yet, even with no funding, they found staff to erect barriers around the memorial... which the vets broke thru.

In even more blatant shutdown theater, the Air Force - Navy football game has been ordered cancelled... even though the event requires no government funding.


Personally, I've noticed no difference since the shutdown... which is pretty much what I've expected.

OK, but they obviously had a "right" to do it, as they haven't broken the law and are using their power enumerated under the Constitution. They just refuse to pass the budget in the way that the opposition demands. That is actually called hardball or leverage in order to extract concessions. Ever buy a car? Walk out and prepare to lose the car.

Piecemeal should be the only way budgets are ever passed. Look at your cable package. What is all of that crap and how did it get there? Am I paying for the Oprah channel, msnbc and LOGO? I barely watch CSPAN, the military channel and HGTV and all of the good stuff is on Netflix.

Either way, the democrats currently in power make me physically sick. I hope that they are eating a turd sandwich. The closure of open air parks across the US is hilarious in its absurdity. The Federal government is closed, but somehow they are building evern more irritating bureaucratic obstructions to the American people than they do while funded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Speaking of shutdown theater- they actually turned out park police and other staffers to try to keep WWII vets from visiting the WWII memorial on the national mall. Mind you, the reasoning was that it was closed because of the shutdown- but the memorial is open-air and normally open to the public 24/7 unstaffed. Yet, even with no funding, they found staff to erect barriers around the memorial... which the vets broke thru.

---

In all the images I have been seeing it is police who are erecting the barriers and I see no reason to doubt that it is the same here. Certainly they did at the Lincoln Memorial and I would suspect elsewhere. I strongly suspect that these things have to be closed off because maintenance staff aren't on hand for cleaning etc. What would have happened if someone, to take a wild example, had sprayed a swastika on the memorial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

In even more blatant shutdown theater, the Air Force - Navy football game has been ordered cancelled... even though the event requires no government funding.

---

The event itself doesn't but... http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...523_story.html

At Air Force, the shutdown impacts members of the Falcons’ support staff, classified as civil service employees. They would be ineligible to travel during the shutdown. According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Air Force Athletic Director Hans Mueh, assistant football coach John Rudzinksi and the school’s sports information department were furloughed Tuesday.

You can try to blame the Democrats in any way you want for the theatre here Xiahou, but you have no leg to stand on. Your party created this mess and has to deal with everything that follows. The American people are already blaming you.

Who did you vote for in the last election GB? The one before that? You are good on guns I will give you that and seem pretty moderate, but did the GOP ever have you when they were moderate, establishment politicians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

In all the images I have been seeing it is police who are erecting the barriers and I see no reason to doubt that it is the same here. Certainly they did at the Lincoln Memorial and I would suspect elsewhere. I strongly suspect that these things have to be closed off because maintenance staff aren't on hand for cleaning etc. What would have happened if someone, to take a wild example, had sprayed a swastika on the memorial?


The event itself doesn't but... http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...523_story.html

At Air Force, the shutdown impacts members of the Falcons’ support staff, classified as civil service employees. They would be ineligible to travel during the shutdown. According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Air Force Athletic Director Hans Mueh, assistant football coach John Rudzinksi and the school’s sports information department were furloughed Tuesday.

You can try to blame the Democrats in any way you want for the theatre here Xiahou, but you have no leg to stand on. Your party created this mess and has to deal with everything that follows. The American people are already blaming you.

---

Somehow there were enough park rangers to completely barricade the park, but not to make sure that people didn't graffiti the monument itself? LE was not effected by the shutdown. No national security either, unless the job was deemed nonessential. I'm surprised that pandacam didn't qualify, given the governments meaning of "essential services"

People like Barack Obama more than all Republicans combined. He is the magic man. Fortunately for us we don't have to run against him again. The verdict is in, we have lost the popularity contest for the remaining 3 years, might as well have fun playing the bad guy. Go back to pining about Abbott and deal with your own intractable conservative problem.

Even with this tantrum, it's unlikely that it will hurt the GOP badly enough this far away from the midterms. If we lose seats in the House, we could lose the House, but not by too much. We may still grow a few in the Senate. Even with a rebalance, the AWB wouldn't pass with the current membership, only the background checks extension which is fine by me. Maybe a 3 branch Democratic gpovernment could make some bad decisions during the lame duck which would boost Christie vs Hillary in 2016. Who gives a crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

At this point, neither party has my vote. I'll keep voting for DeFazio for as long as he runs, because he's awesome, but both parties are pretty much crap in my book now. And I feel like not sticking to that would be failing in my civic duty: these monolithic parties need to be held accountable for their crap. So aside from the one congressman I like, who is old and passive and won't make any waves anyway, screw both parties. But this crap the R's are pulling right now personally affects me. I am a disabled veteran going to school full time and I rely on services that are at risk because of this stubborn Tea Party garbage. I pay my rent with my VA check. I am the most financially secure person I know. Real people are risk here, and I'm pissed at the Republicans for it. I can't be alone in that. :shrug:

---

Do you have a job? What kind of disability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

OK, but they obviously had a "right" to do it, as they haven't broken the law and are using their power enumerated under the Constitution.

---

I wasn't aware the Hastert Rule was in the Constitution. Absent that strange bit of self-gelding, there are plenty of votes for a "clean" funding bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I wasn't aware the Hastert Rule was in the Constitution. Absent that strange bit of self-gelding, there are plenty of votes for a "clean" funding bill.

---

Who decides what to vote on, Lemur? Does the majority party form quorums and does the House originate spending bills according to its own rules as in Article One, or are those rules decided by the other branches?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

So far, the only people who have been bothered by the shutdown are Democrats and government employees, those who suckle on the teat of government.

---

Speaking as someone who has worked in the private sector his entire life, and who has actually "created jobs" (I love how that gets bandied about like a magic talisman), and who has never taken a dime of government money (not even a mortgage deduction—which is, in fact, a payoff), this sort of empty rhetoric offends the hell out of me.

And the fact that you're willing to spit it in the face of a vet says a whole lot about your character.

Much like the Tea Partiers you include in your first person plural, you cast yourself as a nihilist. Willingly. 'Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'll admit, my station in life is largely due to poor life choices, but I am owed a certain something for the service I did provide. Its not much, but it is at risk because of obstinate politicians. That pisses me off.

---

I will only tell a wounded veteran that they are owed handouts because they earned them. They aren't even really handouts, but I have to tell you to find a job and do it. There is no excuse. At my last job, one of the finest workers was a mam whose back was crushed in high school. His motor and speech skills we impaired. He had the most dignity of anyone working in that place because in spite of the things which should have held him back he had achieved more than anyone else in the office. People were in awe of him. My own situation is plagued by mysterious illnesses which just appear every few years and devestate my quality of life. They never go away, but I have worked for 10 years full time and I am 30 now. I am constantly tempted to just go I've up, but I won't give democrats the satisfaction and I won't do that to my wife. As I've stated, you are a smart man who has more to offer than most. Get out there and don't be afraid to not be great at something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Speaking as someone who has worked in the private sector his entire life, and who has actually "created jobs" (I love how that gets bandied about like a magic talisman), and who has never taken a dime of government money (not even a mortgage deduction—which is, in fact, a payoff), this sort of empty rhetoric offends the hell out of me.

And the fact that you're willing to spit it in the face of a vet says a whole lot about your character.

Much like the Tea Partiers you include in your first person plural, you cast yourself as a nihilist. Willingly. 'Nuff said.

---

Spit in the face of a vet. Give me a break. I don't treat anybody with kid gloves, especially not veterans. He knows that he shouldn't lie in a hammock for too long, even if it is his too do with as he likes - for his own sake.

We get it, you've broken the paradigm - a job creator who loves paying taxes to people and gets nothing in return, some of which are deserving veterans, others who would buy drugs and whores with the money. Thank you for thanking people for their service.

How much does the GI bill pay per annum?

Youth allowance would start at about 15,000 over three years in Aus to help people with cost of living.

That is a pretty crap hand to deal people.

That $15k is for an eighteen year old living at home with parents on a combined income of less then $150k. The kid can earn up to $10k before there rates are reduced.

I have only held private sector jobs

Can I spit on vets too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Is that $15k/year? Aussie dollars or US Dollars?

15k/year is more than my combined income from all sources, by a decent margin. Its only a little less than I made in the Army.

---

No it's is $223 a fortnight or $15k/3yrs. Plus upto $10k a year of earnings which on minimum casual wages would be about 500 hrs.

If you live away from home its is around $400/fortnight and if you are single with a child it might be $530/fortnight

The Shutdown is just another political game, and one the Republicans will lose, as usual.

The whole thing is disingenuous, of course.

Up until the one in the 1990s government offices or services had never been curtailed. The civil servants had just continued to work but their pay was often late in coming.

You see, whether civil service remains on the job or not is an executive decision. So, most properly any loss of services to the public is the fault of the POTUS.

Clinton took a page from what several state governors had done and shut down services for the first time, to make the Republicans look bad. He didn’t except continuing resolutions much like what is happening this time.

He was covered by the press, just like this time, only this one is even more dramatic than the last.

It is not going to end well for the Republicans and the best thing they can do is just give in. You might have thought they would have learned from the last time, but as usual they didn’t.

No one is going to blame the President for what they perceive as necessary under the circumstances.

And POTUS is... ?

A terrorist takes hostages, and in exchange for their release demands free passage out of the country on the grounds that both he and the state want him out of there: to actually "compromise" on these grounds would of course be a total abdication of responsibility, and for the executive making such a decision cause for impeachment.

But in reality no terrorist would ever make such demands, in part because it makes no sense to go to the trouble of carrying out the terrorism only to use it to plead, 'Hey let's just forget about all of this business'.

And in reality no terrorist would be so obscenely trollish to commit terrorism and then say something along the lines of, 'So we want to destroy your country and society, and you want to neutralize the threat my organization presents to your country and society; let's do the "reasonable" thing and settle on what we both want for now.'

"What's the difference between Tea Partiers and terrorists? You can actually negotiate with terrorists some of the time."

Obviously, piece-meal funding is a terrible idea both practically and politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

And POTUS is... ?

---

President Of The United States. Americans love acronyms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

President Of The United States. Americans love acronyms.

---

President works just fine. If that's too long, Obama is acceptable, too, and if five letter word is too long to type, please refrain from posting and go back to your crayons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

President works just fine. If that's too long, Obama is acceptable, too, and if five letter word is too long to type, please refrain from posting and go back to your crayons.

---

POTUS was popularised by the West Wing as an easily pronounced acronym.

Piecemeal funding of a full appropriations package is an upgrade to the constant spate of CR's that these idiots have been getting away with passing. To say that it is "obviously a bad idea" is a bit of a cop out. We all agree (or an easy majority agrees) that funding should not be withdrawn from a, b, and c, so why can we pass a longer term bill funding those things and then move onto the next things. We could get out of the CR crap cycle.

Fund what we all want on an LCD basis or just hold us hostage over a bloated CR bill that is full of crap neither of us want. Although the GOP started this, something had to give. I hope we have the votes to hold for a long, long time.

Oh, and terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violent terror as a means of coercion, you partisan shill lightweight commentators. Somehow, in trying to clip the governments ability to control individuals in ways that nobody desires, we are accused of McCarthyism. You are the ones running around crying terrorism because you don't like the way people are playing with your toys, (which the other people have a right to play with)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I thought the piecemeal approach was a pretty clever idea. The administration uses their shutdown theater to try to highlight how terrible the shutdown is, the GOP offers to pass continuing resolution funding what they highlight, and Democrats vote it down. It shows how unserious they are.

---

You mean the Democrats should allow the GOP to blackmail them and bow to their every whim for the good of the nation? That would show weakness and turn the Democrats into clowns who can easily be held hostage and extortet. No American would ever suggest such an approach if the GOP were not an American organization. In fact most GOP supporters would probably advocate the use of drone strikes...

I think the Democrats are correct in not bowing to this or else they lose all the power they currently still have.
Might suit you, but you won't fool anyone.

Not to forget that the things the GOP is willing to let through piece by piece probably all benefit the GOP and their constituents to a large part, so giving in to that would be really disadvantageous.

Quote:

---

Piecemeal funding of a full appropriations package is an upgrade to the constant spate of CR's that these idiots have been getting away with passing. To say that it is "obviously a bad idea" is a bit of a cop out. We all agree (or an easy majority agrees) that funding should not be withdrawn from a, b, and c, so why can we pass a longer term bill funding those things and then move onto the next things. We could get out of the CR crap cycle.

---

1. It legitimizes the tactic.
2. It avoids the issue of actually having a conversation on what we want to have and what we want to pay for.

Quote:

---

Somehow, in trying to clip the governments ability to control individuals in ways that nobody desires

---

That you don't desire.

Quote:

---

, we are accused of McCarthyism. You are the ones running around crying terrorism because you don't like the way people are playing with your toys, (which the other people have a right to play with)

---

"Our toys"? So, the legislative and judicial processes are "toys"?

If you want the right to "play" with some "toys", try winning some elections. Otherwise, you're literally a bully and a thief.

This right here is what should be done to the Tea Party.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isfn4OxCPQs

Try winning some elections. That's rich. Listen, the American people are scared of, but likely want Obamacare. Here is my narrative:

The American people re-elected Barack Obama because they are more scared of the existing health care system that his hopes to replace. This I get - for all of the things I don't like, there are many things I do like about the ACA. In the reticence of the American people, they handed the reigns of spending over to the GOP to ensure that the majority of Americans who already have health insurance were not fleeced by a Senate and President who are more interested in coverage for the uninsured and those interest groups to which they are beholden, than those who are already paying through the nose. The House originates all spending bills, why? Because their numbers are recognized to be closer to the body of the whole people and the people need to hold the purse strings. As much as the President was reelected re-enforces the legitimacy of the ACA, the fact that the GOP has enough of a majority in the House to shut the government down over the individual mandate re-enforces the fact that they were literally put there to control rampant spending and Federal dictat, particularly related to this new program.

People are acting as though budgets should simply be passed, even though he deliberative body doesn't believe in the budget. Why not just get rid of the House and let the Senate and President just pass whatever they want? Negotiation is what people who hate each other do when they have to live with one another in spite of disparate agendas, and they have already fought a bloody civil war.

The one lesson of secession is that it doesn't work. There is no breaking away, it is either kill or be killed. Do you think that the 13th through 15th amendments would have ever passed during the 19th century had the South stayed and fought in the House and Senate? No way. I'm glad they were passed, but it doesn't change the fact that they were passed when the South had either no representation within the Union or the reps that they had were reconstruction era puppets. You stay and fight for what you believe in, or change your position. Death or ruin awaits for those who flee.

I think that we are approaching terrible times, but due to our past experience we will fight within the system rather than outside of it. The American people are probably already at war with one another, but the tactics will be different. The tentacles must be severed before we are all suffocated.

Quote:

---

they handed the reigns of spending over to the GOP

---

Not at all. The Democrats gained in the House, and actually won more votes overall than the Republicans. If all districts were identical in size, Democrats would have the majority in the House right now.

Quote:

---

the fact that the GOP has enough of a majority in the House to shut the government down over the individual mandate re-enforces the fact that they were literally put there to control rampant spending and Federal dictat, particularly related to this new program

---

Aha. So what you're saying is, any majority in the House of Representatives by any party entitles that one party to do whatever the hell it wants and dictate the actions of the entire federal government?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Anyway, it's only a few dozen Tea Partiers holding the Republicans in thrall, as they are the only ones actually not willing to pass a clean CR right now.

What part of "all spending bills originate in the House" is unclear to you?

Also, the American Revolution was won by a tiny, radical segment of the American colonial population. If radicalization has spread to even 10% of the GOP and independents, national stability will be shaken. It isn't like the GOP is demanding that we implement Sharia Law, they asked that the individual mandate be pushed back until the kinks are better worked out. The response has been hilarious and I welcome the failure to negotiate an inch.

Quote:

---

they asked that the individual mandate be pushed back until the kinks are better worked out.

---

So pass new legislation. If legislation is passed, it is not a legitimate form of opposition to jam the gears of the government at large. At any rate, this has nothing to do with ACA in the least, and it's an insult to our intelligence to claim so.

Quote:

---

What part of "all spending bills originate in the House" is unclear to you?

---

What part of 'there are three branches to the federal government' do you not understand? What part of 'there is both a Senate and a House of Representatives' do you not understand?

This is about as reasonable as the President expropriating all assets from the top 1% in net-worth by executive fiat.

I fail to understand what the mere existence of the Senate and Executive has to do with anything. The House passes its bill, the Senate counters with its own and they come to an agreement on what should be funded. The House has said that it has no reason or interest passing funding for the ACA as it exists, but we are willing to fund it with a minor adjustment. You have said no adjustments. They should be discussing other options that recognize the agenda of both parties. Or they can fund government piecemeal. That's how it works. You can say no until you are blue in the face a d it won't get the bill passed. If we crazy people really do have enough votes to scupper the CR, then this could go on forever.

Regarding your analogy of the President seizing assets of individuals without a law allowing it shows how absurd your understanding of the Federal system is. Much less your understanding of the term "analogous"

Quote:

---

I fail to understand what the mere existence of the Senate and Executive has to do with anything.

---

Oh, you've made that quite clear by now. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

The House has said that it has no reason or interest passing funding for the ACA as it exists, but we are willing to fund it with a minor adjustment. You have said no adjustments.

---

Horseshit. The ACA is funded. It is the entire federal system that is being attacked here.

A party that controls the majority of government should need not endure the impudence of tiny minorities, in general. Not at all, is any obsequity owed to said minority.

Quote:

---

Regarding your analogy of the President seizing assets of individuals without a law allowing it shows how absurd your understanding of the Federal system is. Much less your understanding of the term "analogous"

---

On the contrary, it demonstrates your delusional conception of the current political situation.

Brilliant. Obviously, the fact that they are in an intractable situation shows that they do need to endure the impudence of tiny minorities. Also, obsequity has questionable existence as a word that actually exists, but I guess since you and another person have used it, it is a word now.

Quote:

---

Obviously, the fact that they are in an intractable situation shows that they do need to endure the impudence of tiny minorities.

---

:applause:

You all heard it - minority rule is the standard!

Parties should be trying as hard as possible to lose future elections, because after all, it's the minority who gets to run the government!

It's cool when people forget what they're fighting about in the first place. Bravo.

“This is not just about Obamacare anymore,” centrist Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., said.

“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

This has very little to do with Obamacare. It is a diversion to stall and weaken the Federal government and extract concessions, just like everything that congress does has little to do with the theme. The weaker and more dysfunctional the Federal system is, the more money interest groups will pay to States to enact favorable legislation. The more we do this, the weaker the Federal government becomes in a ratio to State power. If we could do this every day I would favor that.

Every day that the government dithers it weakens in relation to those who have their act together. Every day the Federal government weakens, individuals have more of a say in how they live their own lives. Hopefully a weakened Federal government can refocus its energies on core responsibilities.

Maybe we have finally found a way to cut some heads off of the Hydra?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The Shutdown is just another political game, and one the Republicans will lose, as usual.

The whole thing is disingenuous, of course.

Up until the one in the 1990s government offices or services had never been curtailed. The civil servants had just continued to work but their pay was often late in coming.

You see, whether civil service remains on the job or not is an executive decision. So, most properly any loss of services to the public is the fault of the POTUS.

Clinton took a page from what several state governors had done and shut down services for the first time, to make the Republicans look bad. He didn’t except continuing resolutions much like what is happening this time.

He was covered by the press, just like this time, only this one is even more dramatic than the last.

It is not going to end well for the Republicans and the best thing they can do is just give in. You might have thought they would have learned from the last time, but as usual they didn’t.

No one is going to blame the President for what they perceive as necessary under the circumstances.

---

Polls suggest that at least 30% of the USA blames Obama (though not necessarily exclusively) for the shutdown. They basic mis-calculation there is that GOP representatives have to stand for reelection. Obama does not. The GOP might pick up a little momentum in the next congressional elections, but the only potential shift is in the Senate...and so far that doesn't seem likely based on folks reaction.

Bunch of drama-craving prostitutes, the lot of them.

Separate funding bills? Fine. Omnibus package? Fine.

How about getting the damn budget finished by 1 September for a change.

Instead, we need the drama of a showdown in slow motion. Gack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

upheld by the Supreme Court

---

Just for accuracy's sake: Pretty sure only a couple of aspects of ACA/Obamacare have been challenged in front of the Supremes. So it's not as though the entire law has been vetted and approved by the Men in Black.

Other than that, yeah. The Obomination Kenyan Socialist Pretender has played by the rules: two national elections and a Supreme Court challenge. The Repubs? Not so much.

"We are nihilists, Lebowski, we believe in nothing!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

"We are nihilists, Lebowski, we believe in nothing!"

---

I wonder if Ted Cruz's wife has 9 toes? :inquisitive:

At this point Dawg is saying that he wants to disrupt society and entire economies simply because he wants the focus of interest groups to be bribing state legislatures for policy favors instead of Congress.

It's just fighting an abstract concept for the sake of fighting it. Such is what happens when you have too much free time on your hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

The event itself doesn't but... http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...523_story.html

At Air Force, the shutdown impacts members of the Falcons’ support staff, classified as civil service employees. They would be ineligible to travel during the shutdown. According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Air Force Athletic Director Hans Mueh, assistant football coach John Rudzinksi and the school’s sports information department were furloughed Tuesday.

---

Uh-huh. Read the rest of your link. During the Clinton-era shutdown they had the same furloughs.... and they still played their games. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Other than that, yeah. The Obomination Kenyan Socialist Pretender has played by the rules: two national elections and a Supreme Court challenge. The Repubs? Not so much.

---

I think that's just a little bit disingenuous. Remember how they had to use the reconciliation gimmick to get the bill thru the Senate? Nothing illegal but it definitely took a lot of arm-twisting and gaming Senate procedures.

Similarly, this shutdown isn't breaking any rules either. Spending bills come from the House. What "rules" aren't they following? I would think that by your standard the Senate didn't play by the rules when they passed it, if the House isn't playing by the rules now. I think in both cases, the politicians are just playing the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Would you please, please, give me the longest possible version of why you think this is a good thing? The whole philosophical shebang, please. I want to try and understand.

...because by my estimation, a weaker federal government only helps big business, and that's not good. Consumer protection and environmental protection is too weak as it is, all around.

---

Long story short, it is an excuse to shut down government. Despite what the GOP says, we want to shut down government. We believe that most of what the Federal government does is bloated, unnecessary and a cancer on individual rights. All of the things that we do like about the Federal Government are constantly held against us as a bargaining chip for why we need to compromise and allow another bloated program through. The ACA is law and it isn't worth fighting against anymore, but the fact that, although it is currently unworkable, there is still a law that says you will be penalized for not having something that you can't get is naturally irritating for many. This has an ounce of populist resonance, even though it will largely be rectified by tax time and most people will have access before they have to pay a fee. Anyone who can't afford health care won't have to pay the fee in any case because they end up getting money that they never put in. Net tax recipients will not be penalized for failing to buy something that they can't afford.

It is simply something that we are able to use against the Democrats. We've lost the popularity contest, are not slated to lose or gain many seats at the mid-term. Since we are already played in the media as the bad guy, let's just live up to it. We all know that spending needs to be reigned in to avoid higher taxes long term, so let's leverage the little that we have. The ACA mandate delay is a distraction. I'd be pissed if they even gave it to us because then we wouldn't have a reason to stay in shut down.

You do realize that you will be effectively getting less for your tax money if you get your credit rating lowered right?

Because more of your taxes will go to paying interest.

Effectively what the Tea Party has done is increased the tax without representation ratio as more of your taxes go overseas to pay interest.

What does a default have to do with the shutdown? Do you mean people will start to think that the US can't pay its bills and it's own people have lost confidence in it?

If you mean that we will get a downgrade because we can't pass a budget, I'm not sure that one has to do with the other. We are currently saving money by ceasing nonessential services. We won't get a credit downgrade for that. The risk to our credit rating will come from interest in default. The failure to repay our obligations. That has not yet been discussed. I would much rather spend this time hardballing for cuts to programs and have no intention of supporting a debt ceiling impact.

Well, it is a brilliant idea after all.

'The Federal govt does too many things mediocrely, and instead should do a few things excellently. To that end, we're going to smash at the economy until the Federal bureaucracy collapses along with it.

Afterwards, America rises from the ashes like a bald eagle and becomes GREAT and FREE again!

It's like we say, just give us a chance to destroy the national and international economic balance, and then we'll all decide who was right or wrong.

And if you don't, that just means you're a MINDLESS TYRANT.

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM? THE FACT THAT WE EXIST ENTAILS THAT WE DESERVE TO BE GIVEN THE REIGNS AND LEVERS.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You do realize that you will be effectively getting less for your tax money if you get your credit rating lowered right?

Because more of your taxes will go to paying interest.

Effectively what the Tea Party has done is increased the tax without representation ratio as more of your taxes go overseas to pay interest.

---

NPR is reporting that S&P has no plans, as of yet, for a further reduction of the credit rating. On the other hand, they did suggest that returning to a AAA was unlikely in the near future was unlikely given the current silliness in Wolkenkuckucksheim-on-Potomac.*



*First read and loved that word in Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day.

We have something that you need. We dont like you. You demand it. We have no reason to give it to you. Why is this so hard to understand? Find something we want, give it to us, and we will give you the thing that you want. Promise.

You guys just like to guilt us into doing things we don't want to do for nothing in return. When does anything actually work like that?

"Cutting off your nose to spite your face." / Pyhric Victory.

If you push to hard you will get a rebound that will erode the Tea Party and Republican Party.

I'm sure that one of the Republican Parties selling points is its fiscal and budgetary strength. This will be tarnished severely if they cause damage to the markets. In Aus in the early eighties we had a similar scenario and it essentially caused such a massive electoral backlash it meant the left held Federal power for a dozen years.

In other words you might motivate the non voters to get up and vote democrats for a decade.