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

[A'isha]

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.

No, it's not. There's a reason we have three branches of government and two houses of congress, and it's not so the one being outnumbered can hold the rest of them hostage by threatening to shut down the entire government unless the minority gets its way.

That renders the entire structure of government and the processes established to govern irrelevant. Which is a really really bad thing.

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.

There is no possibility of compromise when one of the sides is saying "we get everything we want, or we shut the whole thing down and torpedo the entire nation's economy".

There's no negotiation here, where both sides are giving up things in return for getting things. The Republicans do not actually want a shutdown any more than the Democrats do, so they aren't actually giving up anything by voting for the spending bill. What they're doing is betting that the Democrats will give them everything they want, and are not even deigning to propose to give anything in return to the Democrats, so both sides can avoid the shutdown that neither of them wants.

This isn't compromise, it's a game of chicken, and the Republicans are hoping the Democrats are going to blink first.

 

[A'isha]

That IS their job.

Not if we're going to continue to have a nation, it's not.

 

[marplots]

No, it's not. There's a reason we have three branches of government and two houses of congress, and it's not so the one being outnumbered can hold the rest of them hostage by threatening to shut down the entire government unless the minority gets its way.

That argument works the same way if you think the Senate is being stubborn.

There is no possibility of compromise when one of the sides is saying "we get everything we want, or we shut the whole thing down and torpedo the entire nation's economy".

I thought the House already compromised by saying they would agree to a one year delay in implementation rather than defunding Obamacare?

There's no negotiation here, where both sides are giving up things in return for getting things. The Republicans do not actually want a shutdown any more than the Democrats do, so they aren't actually giving up anything by voting for the spending bill. What they're doing is betting that the Democrats will give them everything they want, and are not even deigning to propose to give anything in return to the Democrats, so both sides can avoid the shutdown that neither of them wants.

We probably agree that it's largely political theater. If I want to get reelected, I have to show just how passionate I am about the issues my constituents care about, but in the end, I'll settle for "I tried as hard as I could, but those darn Dems/Repubs wouldn't budge."

This isn't compromise, it's a game of chicken, and the Republicans are hoping the Democrats are going to blink first.[/QUOTE]

 

[A'isha]

That argument works the same way if you think the Senate is being stubborn.

No, because the position of the sane people is that we need to fund the government and all its functions, and that the actual procedure for removing legislation that people think ought to be removed is to either hold a vote on it, or get the judicial branch to overturn it.

I thought the House already compromised by saying they would agree to a one year delay in implementation rather than defunding Obamacare?

And what do the Democrats get in return? How, in other words, is this a compromise?

 

[Tricky]

You might call it "innovation."

You might call that a euphamism.

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.

They have tried fourty times to unpass it and unfund it and they have failed. It is not at all normal for Congress to hold the whole economy hostage by doing something that won't even affect the one law they don't like. Even half the GOP has pleaded with the Tea Partyers not to do this. What will it take to convince them that this is a terrible idea?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not if we're going to continue to have a nation, it's not.

Seems like its a government too big to shutdown. To me, that is the problem here, not the tea party.

 

[Tricky]

Seems like its a government too big to shutdown. To me, that is the problem here, not the tea party.

Sure, you can shut it down. That's what happened in Somalia, and it worked out fine there, dinnit?

 

[A'isha]

Seems like its a government too big to shutdown.

That's why governments exist.

To me, that is the problem here, not the tea party.

Places without functioning governments tend to be rather terrible places. I'd rather that not happen here, thank you.

 

[Diogenes]

... What will it take to convince them that this is a terrible idea?

If the resulting shutdown results in making the military skip a paycheck I think they'll be convinced...at least the "true patriot" types will be...besides that also impacts all those districts with interests in the military-industrial complex. Oh, yeah, and those veterans on disability.

(The military pay bill passed by the house yesterday might not really make it through, anyway)

This FAQ seems pretty comprehensive:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tions-and-answers-about-the-shutdown/2888419/

 

[Kestrel]

In prior shutdowns, some federal departments kept operating because their funding bills had already been passed. Did Congress manage to fund any departments or agencies this year?

 

[Dymanic]

Seems like its a government too big to shutdown. To me, that is the problem here, not the tea party.

I would highly recommend you read James Madison's arguments in Federalist no. 10 concerning the virtues of a large republic over a small one.

Size is not the problem.

 

[PGH]

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?

I realized you have it backwards.

It's not you who should be upset with the GOP. It's they who are rightfully upset with you.

Don't you realize you need health insurance? Why haven't you done everything possible to get it? If it's a matter of employment you should get a better job (ignoring the fact that those jobs lacking health benefits are still necessary and someone will have to fill them)

Do you have a pre-existing condition and you can't get coverage? If so well... go talk to a church or charity. They'll maybe do something.

But mostly you need to stop trying to turn this country into a socialist nightmare just because you're all whiny about dying.

*the above sarcasm represents what I see as the right wing solution to our healthcare problem*

 

[Puppycow]

If they are fairly representing the people that elected them, they are doing their job.

Well here's the rub:

First of all, more voters actually voted for Democrats (for the House of Representatives) in 2012 than for Republicans. Due to Gerrymandering, the Republican majority in the House actually represent a minority of American voters.

Secondly, Only One-Third Of Americans Support Repealing, Defunding Or Delaying Obamacare. Regarding a government shutdown, 68% say it would be bad for the country if it lasts a few days and 79% say it would be bad if it lasts for weeks. 60% say it's more important to approve a budget agreement than to defund Obamacare. Again, only one-third (34%) favor defunding Obamacare over passing a budget. 69% say that Republicans have "acted like spoiled children" during the recent debate over the federal budget. Only 47% say the same about the president.

 

[DavidJames]

Seems like its a government too big to shutdown. To me, that is the problem here, not the tea party.

I tried really hard to understand what you mean by that and failed.

You seem to think a government is optional and can be started and stopped at our whim?

 

[Unabogie]

Well here's the rub:

First of all, more voters actually voted for Democrats (for the House of Representatives) in 2012 than for Republicans. Due to Gerrymandering, the Republican majority in the House actually represent a minority of American voters.

Secondly, Only One-Third Of Americans Support Repealing, Defunding Or Delaying Obamacare. Regarding a government shutdown, 68% say it would be bad for the country if it lasts a few days and 79% say it would be bad if it lasts for weeks. 60% say it's more important to approve a budget agreement than to defund Obamacare. Again, only one-third (34%) favor defunding Obamacare over passing a budget. 69% say that Republicans have "acted like spoiled children" during the recent debate over the federal budget. Only 47% say the same about the president.

And it should be reiterated that Congressmen represent their districts and not just their voters. And more than this, they represent the country and should always have its best interest at heart.

But the most important point, and one which has been made better by ANTPogo already, is that this sort of hostage taking will destroy the country. All of our systems break down when a minority party is willing to find some unanticipated lever of destruction and use it to force concessions or threaten to hurt America on purpose. Again, is this were "defund Obamacare or we won't vote to confirm judges", that would be bad enough, because we need a functioning judiciary and in the past, winning elections has been agreed upon as enabling your preferred selections to proceed to a vote. But this is a whole different animal. This is a default on our debts which has never happened before, and the vast majority of economists believe will be a catastrophe. Americans will see their savings disappear, another recession will be triggered, and our credit rating will be downgraded which will cost us untold amounts of national treasure in the future. This is so outside the normative process that up until the Tea Party came around, such a thing was unthinkable. I shudder to think that this will start to become normal in the minds of the public. Obama is right to stand firm against this because it goes way beyond Obamacare.

Remember, as unpopular as Bush was, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did NOT threaten default or shutdown when they took power in 2006. This is crazy behavior and we'll all pay a price if we don't stop it.

 

[eeyore1954]

Well here's the rub:

First of all, more voters actually voted for Democrats (for the House of Representatives) in 2012 than for Republicans. Due to Gerrymandering, the Republican majority in the House actually represent a minority of American voters.

Secondly, Only One-Third Of Americans Support Repealing, Defunding Or Delaying Obamacare. Regarding a government shutdown, 68% say it would be bad for the country if it lasts a few days and 79% say it would be bad if it lasts for weeks. 60% say it's more important to approve a budget agreement than to defund Obamacare. Again, only one-third (34%) favor defunding Obamacare over passing a budget. 69% say that Republicans have "acted like spoiled children" during the recent debate over the federal budget. Only 47% say the same about the president.

One fact about the poll from the article.

26 percent of the respondents identified as Republicans, compared to 42 percent Democrats and 31 percent independents.

Maybe this is the correct breakdown

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Hey never let them be accused of not supporting our troops. If by support you mean deploy instead of things like pay.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

Back in the day, Reid would have challenged Cruz to a duel,

 

[Upchurch]

Freedom[tm].

Great book, btw.

 

[Diogenes]

Hey never let them be accused of not supporting our troops. If by support you mean deploy instead of things like pay.

I just learned that it is rumored that some ships went on holiday routines during that period. Ours didn't...or if it did it wouldn't have had made a difference to us as I was still standing Shutdown Reactor Operator 12 hours a duty day which was every 3 days in port...and about 10 hours a day as Electrical Operator while at sea (5 on/10 off). All that was in addition to normal maintenance/training/cleaning activities, of course.