US Federal Government Shutdown

**Husar** · 10-03-2013, 12:19

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.

**Montmorency** · 10-03-2013, 12:26

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 We all agree (or an easy majority agrees) that funding should not be withdrawn from a, b, and c, so why can we pass a longer term bill funding those things and then move onto the next things.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.

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

That you don't desire.

, 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.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 10-03-2013, 12:46

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.

**Montmorency** · 10-03-2013, 12:54

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.

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?

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.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 10-03-2013, 13:01

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.

**Montmorency** · 10-03-2013, 13:29

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.

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.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 10-03-2013, 13:35

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"