US Government Shutdown Mega-Thread

[kimmy]

One of the noteworthy points is that not all Republicans support the shutdown. Indeed, a number of them have been quite outspoken against it, most notably John McCain.

There are now at least 17 Republicans who have indicated they would support a "clean" appropriations bill, that is, one with no strings attached (such as defunding the Affordable Care Act.)

That means that if a "clean" appropriations bill were put to the vote in Congress, it would have enough votes to pass.

So, John Boehner has lost his biggest talking point: "Obama refuses to negotiate with Congress" no longer holds water, because Congress would vote to end the shutdown if John Boehner let it be put to a vote.

"Obama refuses to negotiate with Congress" is no longer the issue. "Boehner refuses to negotiate with Congress" is now the problem.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Kimmy, what exactly is a mega-thread ? Is that a thread started by a megalomaniac ?

Will you edit the name of the thread if this is the only post ?

Sorry - I couldn't resist.

The Republicans aren't all behind this, and I think that visibility hurts them. I'm not American, and so my guesses on this are often wrong, but I think they squandered an opportunity to put Obama under here.

[AlienB]

Well I think everyone feels comfortable that there is no real danger until around the 17th which at that point default enters the picture. However the US can only delay these realities. Except for those directly effected, ever the next two weeks (one paycheck term for many) to most people this will remain grandstanding. I will be very suprised if the house has the resolve to put this past the point of default, if it goes there I think neither side will be able to accept failure in the game of chicken over obamacare.

One thing appears clear is that the dems don't seem to be likely to back out.. and for the gop the pressure will continue to mount in a game of crack the whip .. its just a question if enough support will harden to keep the house united against folding.

For the gop I think the economy plays a role in that, I'm not sure the tea party side of thing who seem most radical in the action is large enough to hold on their own.

I would put $10 down that this resolves before the 17th. But if it goes past the 17th... I'm not sure what it would take to normalize things again short of the next election for congress starting November 5th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2013

I would not be suprised if this stuff has a noticable effect on those elections.

If a few more senate seats were involved.

In delaying obamacare by a year it would be yet again a hot election topic..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

Note the "17" it is a numeracy and potentially thus masonically distinct number... as the next election the gop can loose 17 seats while the dems need to gain 17 seats, and the default would occur october 17th.

Edited October 3, 2013 by AlienB

[kimmy]

Kimmy, what exactly is a mega-thread ? Is that a thread started by a megalomaniac ?

Megalomaniac? Puhshaw, Michael; I am as modest as I am brilliant.

Will you edit the name of the thread if this is the only post ?

We're at 4 posts already; this has "mega" written all over it!

The Republicans aren't all behind this, and I think that visibility hurts them. I'm not American, and so my guesses on this are often wrong, but I think they squandered an opportunity to put Obama under here.

What "opportunity"? They had the opportunity to put Obama under, back in November. You may recall it. Some guy named Willard promised Americans that he would overturn the ACA if they elected him President; he was defeated soundly.

This isn't an "opportunity". This is a temper tantrum.

-k

[waldo]

in the interests of countering the brazen liberties taken by those purveyors of the breitbart/FoxNews spin on past U.S. government shutdowns: Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended

It's also important to note that not all shutdowns are created equal. Before some 1980 and 1981 opinions issued by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a failure to fund some part of the government didn't necessarily mean that that part of government would stop functioning. Civiletti's opinions interpreted the Antideficiency Act, a law passed in 1884, as meaning that a failure to pass new spending bills required government functioning to shut down in whole or in part. So the "shutdowns" listed below that happened between 1976 tand 1979 did not always entail an actual stop to government functioning; they were often simply funding gaps that didn't have any real-world effect.

[waldo]

let's recap: the process was properly followed, Obamacare was signed into law in 2010... and constitutionally upheld. House Republicans have unsuccessfully tried to repeal it 42 times - yes, 42 times. So now, the GOP has reverted to extortion by linking the repeal of Obamacare as a condition to passing budgetary legislation required to run the U.S. government. Even though Obamacare was a key election platform issue, the GOP refuses to acknowledge the election, refuses to acknowledge that it lost the election. Hence, the extortion. Let's see if the GOP is willing to carry this into the debt ceiling period... and hold up the repeal of Obamacare as a condition preventing them from paying for the spending they've already approved/incurred. Cause, like... it's all about holding the line on future spending!

[Boges]

Yeah but the Democrats aren't compromising, it's their fault. . . clearly.

[Michael Hardner]

Megalomaniac? Puhshaw, Michael; I am as modest as I am brilliant.

We're at 4 posts already; this has "mega" written all over it!

This isn't an "opportunity". This is a temper tantrum.

-k

It might have been an opportunity if they just let O'Care go forward.

[kimmy]

It might have been an opportunity if they just let O'Care go forward.

If they really thought it's actually wildly unpopular with the people, they would let it proceed and let the Democrats wear the consequences in the next election.

What they're afraid of is the exact opposite: Obamacare proceeds, it's popular and people like it, and will oppose efforts to undo it. Rick Santorum said as much repeatedly during the Republican primaries last year. "we have to stop it now, because if it gets implemented, people aren't going to let you repeal it."

-k

[kimmy]

This dude summarizes the standoff in one soundbite:

"We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

-Rep Marlin Stutzman, R-Indiana.

This has now reached the point of being like the baseball fight where Nolan Ryan hits Robin Ventura with a pitch and Ventura charges at the mound. Halfway to the pitcher's mound, Ventura stops and you can see him think "oh crap, this was a really stupid idea, but if I back off now I'll look like a wuss", so he proceeds to the mound where Ryan puts him in a headlock and punches his face in.

The Republicans are now in Robin Ventura country, where they can't back down now because they'll look like wusses, but if they keep going forward, they're going to get their faces punched in.

-k

Edited October 4, 2013 by kimmy

[TimG]

The democrats and their cheerleaders in the MSM seem to be convinced that the republicans will end up losing.

I am not so certain. The democrats are being extremely petty by trying to lock people out of privately run parks on land owned by the government. People notice this.

The chances of Obamacare being popular are pretty much nil. To be sustainable it depends on young people paying much more for insurance to subsidize the old but it also gives no incentive for the young and healthy to pay because they can always opt in when they need it later. This will lead inevitably increases in costs for the old. Of course it will likely take a few elections for those consequences to become known.

Even unions are now turning against Obamacare.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/05/why-unions-are-turning-on-obamacare/

On April 24, the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers released a statement demanding “repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”

On top of that you have a millions of retail workers who have seen their wages cut as businesses adjust to the costs imposed on them. I wonder how many people working in retail would have supported Obamacare if they realized they would see their incomes be cut by 25% as a result?

I don't see how anyone can claim this beast can possibly succeed at this point.

Edited October 4, 2013 by TimG

[kimmy]

If Elephant Team feels the same way, why don't they let it flop and reap the political rewards in the next elections?

The Affordable Care Act has been passed by Congress, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, and last November by the voters. The Republicans have no leg to stand on in linking this shutdown to the ACA.

If the debt ceiling doesn't get raised within two weeks, the government has to stop issuing Social Security cheques. We'll see if the Republicans still think they're winning this showdown when their core constituency stops getting their money.

-k

[TimG]

If Elephant Team feels the same way, why don't they let it flop and reap the political rewards in the next elections?

I someone has set off a bomb that will harm a lot of people it makes sense to disarm that bomb before it goes off. One would have to be pretty cynical to sit back and do nothing simply because you thought you would benefit at the polls.

The Affordable Care Act has been passed by Congress, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, and last November by the voters. The Republicans have no leg to stand on in linking this shutdown to the ACA.

Last I checked this Congress was elected in 2012 and it included a lot of members who are dead set against the ACA - a Congress that has much democratic legitimacy as Obama. It is rather silly to argue that a newly elected Congress cannot repudiate laws passed by a prior Congress.

If the debt ceiling doesn't get raised within two weeks, the government has to stop issuing Social Security cheques. We'll see if the Republicans still think they're winning this showdown when their core constituency stops getting their money.

And the dems have their own constituents who won't be happy to see their benefits cut. It is a game a chicken.

[kimmy]

The difference being that the Democrat constituents blame the Republicans for the shutdown. Polls show that the Republicans are viewed as the culprits. They're losing the PR war, and they'll be viewed as the bad guys. Congress already has an approval rating lower than Ebola.

A majority of Congress no longer support the shutdown, as mentioned above. Republicans aren't united behind Ted and the Tea Partyists, and if Boehner put it to a vote, it would pass.

And comparing stopping Obamacare to stopping a bomb from going off is pretty ridiculous.

-k

[sharkman]

If the Dems see a financial meltdown coming because of the shut down, should they just sit by and let it happen in the hopes of mid term gains? Sounds to me like they don't really see one or they'd actually do something other than mug for the media. But both sides need to compromise, and Obama, who's been running the country on executive orders, needs to work with the congress that the people elected.

Edited October 4, 2013 by sharkman

[dre]

Well... the shutdown is hurting me, and Im not even American.

http://nist.gov/

I use that site to download a list of about 35 million md5 or sha1 hashes for OS and software files, then I make a bloom filter and a lookup table on that so that when I crawl client data I discard files that have no real symantic value.

[kimmy]

If the Dems see a financial meltdown coming because of the shut down, should they just sit by and let it happen in the hopes of mid term gains? Sounds to me like they don't really see one or they'd actually do something other than mug for the media. But both sides need to compromise, and Obama, who's been running the country on executive orders needs to work with the congress that the people elected.

Why should the Democrats agree to defund a program that's already been approved by Congress, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, and the voters?

Why should defunding the ACA be a prerequisite to ending the shutdown?

-k

Edited October 4, 2013 by kimmy

[dre]

If the Dems see a financial meltdown coming because of the shut down, should they just sit by and let it happen in the hopes of mid term gains? Sounds to me like they don't really see one or they'd actually do something other than mug for the media. But both sides need to compromise, and Obama, who's been running the country on executive orders needs to work with the congress that the people elected.

So it doesnt look like you even read Kimmys post. The "congress that the people elected" would vote RIGHT NOW to fund the government with a clean funding bill that does not attempt to defund legislation that the "congress that the people elected" has already voted on and passed.

Theres nothing to "negotiate". All thats required is an up and down vote. How can Obama or anyone else for that matter "work with the congress that people elected" if a tiny group of people that does not represent the will of the "congress that people elected" refuses to allow congress to VOTE?

If congress didnt want to FUND this legislation they should not have VOTED for it. Its really that simple.

And thats why congress has a lower approval rating than pedophiles

Edited October 4, 2013 by dre

[kimmy]

Hey, remember all those NSA hackers who were reading your email and tracking your Visa purchases last week? They're not reading your email or tracking your Visa purchases this week. They're on furlough. I guess even though they're saving America from terrorists 24/7/365, they're not an essential service.

Here's the letter.

-k

[TimG]

A majority of Congress no longer support the shutdown, as mentioned above. Republicans aren't united behind Ted and the Tea Partyists, and if Boehner put it to a vote, it would pass.

If this is true then why hasn't Boehner cut a deal? Seems to me the influence of the Tea Party wing goes beyond their simple numbers in congress.

And the bomb analogy is appropriate given the huge numbers of perverse and counter productive incentives that are built into the act. I am sure that all those retail workers forced to limit their hours to 30/week are feeling shell shocked.

[kimmy]

(As if Papa John's and fast food places and retailers have full time employees anyway.)

Why hasn't Boehner cut a deal? With who? It's entirely possible that he could allow a "clean" appropriations bill to be put to the vote soon.

Why hasn't he already? Because he's scared of getting thrown under the bus by the Limbaugh wing of the part. If he caves, they'll be out for his skull.

-k

[August1991]

Well I think everyone feels comfortable that there is no real danger until around the 17th which at that point default enters the picture.

I agree.

But the 17th October is not even critical. The US federal government can manage until early November. Then it has to borrow.

I suspect Obama - like Lincoln - will simply declare that to survive, the Republic must borrow.

And there's the rub (as Shakespeare asked). How long can the Republic survive if it borrows?

We all know - as Thatcher said - eventually there's no more money. These Krugman/Keynesian experiments run out of other people's money: No institution can offer a credible guarantee. Fiscal and Monetary policy no longer work. The players have pushed the envelope too far, trusting a government will bail them out.

Then what?

What happens when people no longer trust the Fed?

----

The world is far from such a question. But Obama (and Bush Jnr) have made it easier for people to push the envelope.

NDLR: I have come to conservatism slowly. Rather than radical change, I now prefer small steps/attempts.

Edited October 4, 2013 by August1991

[TimG]

As if Papa John's and fast food places and retailers have full time employees anyway

Actually they did. And it is not just retail. For example colleges are limiting the hours of their adjunct professors: http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=4d244b10-c6c5-4ac5-8813-6af97bde54ff

At a macro level you see a massive shift to part time work:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101007937

Obamacare is causing real harm to people at the low end of wage spectrum. The most insidious aspect is the law forces employers to be extremely rigid about hours. i.e. before someone who wanted to work hard could pick up extra shifts - now they are simply not allowed. I find this aspect the most onerous.

There can be no true reform of healthcare in the US until they break this link between employers and healthcare.

Why hasn't he already? Because he's scared of getting thrown under the bus by the Limbaugh wing of the part. If he caves, they'll be out for his skull.

IOW, the tea party has enough voter sympathy to sway the moderate republicans. Which re-enforces my point that Congress believes they are representing the people that elected them and your attempts to paint this effort as undemocratic because a prior Congress passed the law is partisan spin doctoring. Edited October 4, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

These Krugman/Keynesian experiments run out of other people's money: No institution can offer a credible guarantee. Fiscal and Monetary policy no longer work. The players have pushed the envelope too far, trusting a government will bail them out.

I think this crisis has more to do with fundamental changes in the economy... I mean, we've been cutting taxes and spending, generally, in Canada and the US as well.

[Argus]

My position, which is the sane one, of course, is that you pass laws according to the will of the majority of the congress, and you repeal them according to the same will. The Affordable Care Act was passed and is law. End of story. If you want to stop it, you simply elect more people, including a new president, and then you repeal it.

What you don't do is to use routine money matters as blackmail. This is not the Democratic government. It's the American government. Shutting it down doesn't hurt the Democrats, it hurts the American people. The Republicans are acting like their salaries aren't enough (they aren't, of course since most American politicians are thoroughly corrupt). They're not going to do their job even on a routine housekeeping bill unless someone gives them something. And if that hurts a lot of people, well, that is literally the last thing on their minds.

And can I express some hysterical laughter here at the Republicans pointing to some small time workers getting hours cut back as their inspiration? The only time the Republicans pay attention to ordinary American workers to try to crush them into the ground by taking away their benefits, their unions, their pensions, their health protection, and letting their employers run roughshod over their lives and safety. The Republican party doesn't give a shit about ordinary workers. It's spent decades helping employers move jobs out of the country! The only people the Republicans care about are the wealthy. Who, of course, have no need of any sort of government healtcare plan.

But as I said, the Republicans don't care about this government. What does it do they think their people need? Their wealthy corporate donors are just as happy without regulators and inspectors around, and they certainly don't care about the services provided to ordinary people.

By the way, how is it that every time a new politician from Texas makes himself known on the national scene he's even dumber than the last one? Would the IQ of the United States rise significantly if Texas was booted out? Is there anything down there but inbred, bible thumping rednecks who think a high school degree makes someone " A INT-A-LECUAL"?

Edited October 4, 2013 by Argus