So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[eeyore1954]

They are trying to shutdown the government so they can try and get rid of a program that will get me health insurance for the first time in a decade.

So why should I not be beyond angry with them?

Anyone want to talk me off the ledge here about why I shouldn't care they are trying to stop me from getting health insurance?

Anyone?

You should be upset with what they are doing. Although I would think you should be more upset with the wonderful state of California for not having a program in place in the past decade for people in your situation.

 

[eeyore1954]

Right for _________?

a. The nation
b. their party
c. their individual reelection prospects

That's the problem I have, I'm pretty sure the correct answer is not "a".

A lot of people (including some of our elected officials) firmly believe allowing the plan to continue will be disastrous for the nation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is not using "the procedures in place", at least not in the historical sense. These kinds of procedures haven't been used before, even though they may have been theoretically possible.

But if you want to talk "procedures in place", remember that the law was passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, and then ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. It has gone through every branch of government and survived over fourty challenges. The GOP is essentially saying, "Screw the procedures in place. We want to have our way."

And now they have decided to take their ball and go home because the democrats aren't playing fair!!!!!

 

[eeyore1954]

Check your stock portfolio. Are your dividends increasing? As billionaires, we must support our allies in government. Don't be fooled by all that Jesus and America stuff, that's just for the poors and mere millionaires.

Oh, wait, you're not a billionaire? Heavens, to think I wasted my precious time answering a post of yours! I'll have to bill you for this, let's call it even at $48,000. I'll use it to tip my caddy's butler.

I am just wondering if someone is a billionaire how will a government shutdown affect their municipal bond portfolio. Or their stock portfolio. Or the businesses they own.

 

[Dymanic]

This is how the balance of power shakes out in our system. The House of Representatives has considerable power and they are exercising it.

I would argue (and have) that along with that power comes a great deal of responsibility -- and they are not exercising that. Consider:

Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, among the powers given to Congress are:
"... to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

Under Article II, powers given to the President include this:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..."

In the teeth of a major international crisis, would we extend to the President the right to opt out of that duty? You know: "Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make the most substantive decisions regarding allocation of military resources as well as defining their objectives"? Clearly not. Why then is the very idea that among the powers given to Congress (in this case, the House) is the power to decide, on a case by case basis, whether it is inclined to exercise its duties (read: responsibilities) not met with howls of outrage from all sides?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Because a two party system can only function if there is compromise and the occasional acceptance of defeat. If the objective is "We get everything we want or we shut everything down" that isn't trying to do the right thing, it's holding the government of the U.S. hostage to political idealogy.

A political parties agenda is not more important than effectively running the government.

This.

Also, it should be noted that Obama voted not to extend the debt limit when Bush was president. It's a systemic problem.

 

[marplots]

This is not using "the procedures in place", at least not in the historical sense. These kinds of procedures haven't been used before, even though they may have been theoretically possible.

You might call it "innovation."

But if you want to talk "procedures in place", remember that the law was passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, and then ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. It has gone through every branch of government and survived over fourty challenges. The GOP is essentially saying, "Screw the procedures in place. We want to have our way."

What Congress passes, Congress can unpass. This is a standard ploy in one sense - defund something you don't like. But they are using the procedures in place - tacking something onto a spending bill is old school, and the House version vs. Senate version of a bill is also normal. It's also not unusual for one legislative branch to reject something the other branch comes up with. This is what conference committees are all about.

And who doesn't "want it our way?"

 

[aggle-rithm]

I would argue (and have) that along with that power comes a great deal of responsibility -- and they are not exercising that. Consider:

Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, among the powers given to Congress are:
"... to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

Under Article II, powers given to the President include this:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..."

In the teeth of a major international crisis, would we extend to the President the right to opt out of that duty? You know: "Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make the most substantive decisions regarding allocation of military resources as well as defining their objectives"? Clearly not. Why then is the very idea that among the powers given to Congress (in this case, the House) is the power to decide, on a case by case basis, whether it is inclined to exercise its duties (read: responsibilities) not met with howls of outrage from all sides?

Interesting....what if the west coast were being invaded by sea, and Obama said, "Sure, I'll send the Marines. IF you do a little something for me."

 

[Dymanic]

Also, it should be noted that Obama voted not to extend the debt limit when Bush was president. It's a systemic problem.

I don't agree. It's a self-imposed rule which not only clearly fails to achieve its intended goal, but provides the opportunity for an extremist minority faction to threaten to undermine our whole system.

 

[Dymanic]

Interesting....what if the west coast were being invaded by sea, and Obama said, "Sure, I'll send the Marines. IF you do a little something for me."

Bingo.

 

[Diogenes]

A lot of people (including some of our elected officials) firmly believe allowing the plan to continue will be disastrous for the nation.

I honestly can't tell if they actually believe that or not based on the claims being made publicly that are demonstrably false and, well, appear delusional. As for the rest of the people not in government that are "a lot" I don't know how well-informed that population is or if that's just a measure of how effective the outright lies have been.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

I'm all for rational criticisms...that does require "rational" and I've just not been able to find any that aren't of the "this doesn't go far enough" variety.

 

[A'isha]

This is how the balance of power shakes out in our system. The House of Representatives has considerable power and they are exercising it. I don't see why we should demand they roll over, simply because the Senate and the President have a different opinion.

Because, again, this isn't an issue of "the Senate and the President hav[ing] a different opinion", but the Republicans being unable to get their agenda implemented via the legislative voting process, and as a result threatening to close down government entirely unless they get their way.

They're third-graders throwing a tantrum and threatening to break stuff unless they get their way anyway after being outvoted.

"Take it to the mattresses" might be just what their voters want from them.

And if what their voters want is destructive for not just the country, but the entire basis for governing it, that's even less reason to support what the GOP is doing. This is why the "suicide bomber" analogy is so apt - they aren't just keeping promises to their electorate, they're threatening to tear down the entire thing unless their demands are met. Congressmen are not elected to focus solely on what their small congressional district wants at the expense of the entire country, and wrecking the whole economy of the United States because of the truculence of a tiny subset of voters is dangerous and counterproductive.

The nation cannot function that way, and if this is truly the way things are going to be, if the Republicans insist on holding everything hostage so they can get their agenda implemented no matter how many votes they lose, then we might as well pack it up as a country and go home.

 

[Diogenes]

I was in the Navy for the last shutdown. The news on my ship that we might not get paid on time did wonders for morale. Glad to see the GOP is so willing to again throw servicemembers under the bus.

 

[PGH]

Because, again, this isn't an issue of "the Senate and the President hav[ing] a different opinion", but the Republicans being unable to get their agenda implemented via the legislative voting process, and as a result threatening to close down government entirely unless they get their way.

They're third-graders throwing a tantrum and threatening to break stuff unless they get their way anyway after being outvoted.



And if what their voters want is destructive for not just the country, but the entire basis for governing it, that's even less reason to support what the GOP is doing. This is why the "suicide bomber" analogy is so apt - they aren't just keeping promises to their electorate, they're threatening to tear down the entire thing unless their demands are met. Congressmen are not elected to focus solely on what their small congressional district wants at the expense of the entire country, and wrecking the whole economy of the United States because of the truculence of a tiny subset of voters is dangerous and counterproductive.

The nation cannot function that way, and if this is truly the way things are going to be, if the Republicans insist on holding everything hostage so they can get their agenda implemented no matter how many votes they lose, then we might as well pack it up as a country and go home.

What's the policy on slow clapping around here? Can just anyone start one or do we put it to a vote?

 

[Dymanic]

Because, again, this isn't an issue of "the Senate and the President hav[ing] a different opinion", but the Republicans being unable to get their agenda implemented via the legislative voting process, and as a result threatening to close down government entirely unless they get their way.

They're third-graders throwing a tantrum and threatening to break stuff unless they get their way anyway after being outvoted.



And if what their voters want is destructive for not just the country, but the entire basis for governing it, that's even less reason to support what the GOP is doing. This is why the "suicide bomber" analogy is so apt - they aren't just keeping promises to their electorate, they're threatening to tear down the entire thing unless their demands are met. Congressmen are not elected to focus solely on what their small congressional district wants at the expense of the entire country, and wrecking the whole economy of the United States because of the truculence of a tiny subset of voters is dangerous and counterproductive.

The nation cannot function that way, and if this is truly the way things are going to be, if the Republicans insist on holding everything hostage so they can get their agenda implemented no matter how many votes they lose, then we might as well pack it up as a country and go home.

Yep. Of particular concern is that the Founders do not seem to have anticipated such a scenario. As far as I can tell, there is no legal remedy against a persistent minority faction willing to go that far -- other than waiting for the next election, by which time irreparable harm will already have been inflicted.

 

[A'isha]

What's the policy on slow clapping around here? Can just anyone start one or do we put it to a vote?

 

[marplots]

Because, again, this isn't an issue of "the Senate and the President hav[ing] a different opinion", but the Republicans being unable to get their agenda implemented via the legislative voting process, and as a result threatening to close down government entirely unless they get their way.

It isn't the President and the Senate against the Republicans, it's the President and the Senate against the House of Representatives. That's a subtle but important difference in category shift.

And they are using the legislative voting process. They are voting on a spending bill. Threats are part of the process, as is quid pro quo. The lack of compromise between the House and Senate works both ways.

 

[Dymanic]

Threats are part of the process, as is quid pro quo.

Threats to deliberately tank the economy?. I don't think so.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Congressmen are not elected to focus solely on what their small congressional district wants at the expense of the entire country,

That IS their job. If the people in the district want it, you are not going to get into office doing something else.

 

[marplots]

Threats to deliberately tank the economy?. I don't think so.

It certainly has everyone's attention.

This one caught my eye because it's a commentator "losing it" on camera over the current drama: http://daily.represent.us/news-anch...cause-of-everything-thats-wrong-with-america/