US government Shutdown

[Simon_Jester]

The Republcians in the House have voted to keep the Government open twice now, all Reid and Obama have to do is let the elements of the ACA that haven't gone into effect yet get pushed back another year. I guess President Barry considers the ACA more important than funding the government.

So, apparently, do the Republicans, or they wouldn't have picked this fight in the first place.

I don't think it's right to say "start altering this major legislation or we let the government shut down." Because a party willing to do that can milk it endlessly for concessions, which skews the relationship between the popular mandate of the government and its actual actions.

"You had 55% of the electorate calling for Bill X, but we are willing to shut down the government to stop Bill X" should not fully cancel each other out.

Also, it's not the first time the Government has been shut down. Last week NPR covered that it's been shut down 17 times in the last 37 years.

When was the last time? When were most of those times, have they been happening uniformly about every two years, or were there a whole lot of them during a single short period?

Secondly, I recall Obama saying soldiers' pay will be delayed. They'll get their money in the end, but they better have some saved up and no big expenses until this is over.

The House and Senate passed legislation that will not delay payments to uniformed military personnel, which Obama signed. Civilian contractors, however, are another story.

Didn't know that. Glad to hear it.

Although it makes us take the shutdown less seriously, and I'm beginning to think this is a bad thing, seeing as how we've had a party with control of one house of Congress and not much else milking the "do this or else we'll stop the government from functioning" tactic for three years.

It's really, really tiresome, and part of the reason they get away with it is because from a policy point of view they don't have to take the immediate consequences of the shutdown seriously.

[Thanas]

I can't imagine that this will get the GOP many votes among those who are going to be laid off, so I am wondering if they have simply written all gov contractors votes off or think that this will not matter come next election.

[Broomstick]

Not just government contractors, non-essential government employees are also laid off.

So that's about 800,000 Federal employees plus however many contractors, which is also sure to be in the six digits. And when the October unemployment numbers jump the Tea Party will, once again, blame Obama...

Oh, yeah, this will help the economy.

Truth is, the Tea Party despises government employees as much as it does poor people. Unemployed government employees are, of course, despicable twice over.

[Thanas]

It is crazy that a party which derides government inefficiency apparently thouhgt that firing everybody would be a good way to govern responsibly.

[Justice]

Also, it's not the first time the Government has been shut down. Last week NPR covered that it's been shut down 17 times in the last 37 years.

When was the last time? When were most of those times, have they been happening uniformly about every two years, or were there a whole lot of them during a single short period?

Here's a link looking at all the previous shutdowns. Note that with most of them, there's at least a semblence of a clear and reachable endgame from the initiating party.

Secondly, I recall Obama saying soldiers' pay will be delayed. They'll get their money in the end, but they better have some saved up and no big expenses until this is over.

The House and Senate passed legislation that will not delay payments to uniformed military personnel, which Obama signed. Civilian contractors, however, are another story.

Didn't know that. Glad to hear it.

Although it makes us take the shutdown less seriously, and I'm beginning to think this is a bad thing, seeing as how we've had a party with control of one house of Congress and not much else milking the "do this or else we'll stop the government from functioning" tactic for three years.

It's really, really tiresome, and part of the reason they get away with it is because from a policy point of view they don't have to take the immediate consequences of the shutdown seriously.

Well, I'm certainly not taking the shutdown any less seriously, and I doubt TRR is either. But at least everything didn't go wrong.

[Broomstick]

Also, it's not the first time the Government has been shut down. Last week NPR covered that it's been shut down 17 times in the last 37 years.

When was the last time? When were most of those times, have they been happening uniformly about every two years, or were there a whole lot of them during a single short period?

The last government shutdown I recall was in the mid-1990's and my brief googling shows my memory is accurate - last time was 17 years ago. Republicans having a hissy-fit that time, too, although it was prior to the existence of the Tea Party.

MOST such shut downs are brief, a matter of days, and have largely gone unnoticed. The shutdown in the Clinton years was, for those not employed by the Feds, largely a non-event due to the de-centralized nature of many US government functions. State and local government keep the place running during a Federal shutdown.

I can't imagine that this will get the GOP many votes among those who are going to be laid off, so I am wondering if they have simply written all gov contractors votes off or think that this will not matter come next election.

Last time, the GOP took a hit for the shut-down (rightfully so, in my opinion). This was brought up in some of the morning talk shows on TV this weekend. Apparently a contingent of pro-shutdown Tea Party types thinks that the times and circumstances are sufficiently different that this will not penalize them. I think they're wrong.

Last time, after several weeks it was obvious that 1) the world would not end with the Feds shut down and 2) for most Americans it was a non-event (though obviously not the case for those employed one way or another by the Feds). It's not good. In fact there are a lot of bad things about the situation. It's not the end of the world, though.

One of the stupid things about this mess, though, is that the stated goal - to stop the ACA/Obamacare - won't happen. Even with the Feds shut down the healthcare exchanges open today.

It is crazy that a party which derides government inefficiency apparently thouhgt that firing everybody would be a good way to govern responsibly.

The contingent responsible is not opposed to government inefficiency, they are opposed to government, period. They not only agree with the sentiment of starving government until it's small enough to drown in a bathtub, they're running the water in preparation for the drowning.

There was a last-ditch attempt by more moderate Republicans to prevent the shut-down but they couldn't sway the nutjobs. And the faction responsible don't care about those government employees, those Federal employees are seen as the enemy just as much as people on government aid and those who want healthcare for all. Reducing the government workforce is a prime tenent of that group and they don't care how it's done. As far as they're concerned, slicing off a million+ jobs is a GOOD thing, and if that million+ don't find private sector jobs it's their own damn fault.

I have a LOT of disagreement with those sorts.

[Mr Bean]

The point TimothyC seems to miss is that this is hostage taking. Letting the government close down unless you get your way is not a healthy or even sane way to govern.
Or do you think TimothyC that in three months when the Boehner "compromised" passed would not demand something else for a new three month compromise?

TimothyC the Republicans have a choice to bring a vote up on delaying ACA for a year at any time. That's just the way our system works that they can try and repeal a law and fail 42 times and still legally be able to try a 43rd without issue. The difference is now they are holding the government hostage and demanding something.

If this is a tactic that works in American government then our system quickly falls apart to the most crazy fringe because it does not take much to stop bills in Congress. In fact Boehner is able to just on his own since votes have already been counted and there are over 300 votes for the Senate's clean no attachments open the government back up bill. But because Boehner won't offer the Senate bill then the government shuts down.

I'll state that again, we could have avoided this yesterday if Boehner had offered the Senate bill for a vote, there existed the votes to pass it in both chambers but Boehner refused. The shutdown is directly on him.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It is crazy that a party which derides government inefficiency apparently thouhgt that firing everybody would be a good way to govern responsibly.

The sad thing is, many in the tea party not only believe that this is a Good thing, but fervently believe that shutting down / destroying the federal government is the only way to "Save" America.

Here in the looney bin of Arizona, I have talked to several people who tell me "It is only when we cut away the Dead weight of the Federal Government that our economy will get better! All those government jobs are nothing but a drain on the taxes and stealing money from hard working Americans!"

I guess it never occurs to them that the nearly 1,000,000 employees of the Government ARE 'hard working Americans'.
The falsehood that federal employees are somehow overpaid lay-abouts who live life 'High on the hog' seems to be yet another false hood that has become deeply rooted among the right.

As for this coming back to bite the Tea Party and the GOP, well those supporting it are in FULL Ostrich mode. Yesterday NPR Interviewed one of the tear party congressmen (I forget who) and when the interviewer brought up the fact that EVERY government shutdown has cost seats for the party that caused the shutdown, and if this worried the congressmen, he responded, more than once "Well thats not going to happen to us!"

So THERE!

EDIT: Wanted to add one more comment...
One of the OTHER reasons why those on the far right are so in favor of the shutdown, is because they feel that with the Government shut down, America shall come to it's senses and realize they don't NEED the government! It is basically one of those 'Jack Chick" moments where they believe that the country will have this sudden Revelation "OH! We have been so foolish! now with all government services shut down, we see that we can somehow do all of those by the private sector!!!"
To illustrate, found this quote from a right wing website:

The dems can't afford to let this shutdown go very far because it will become rapidly, painfully obvious that few need the government for anything. The tax PAYERS (remember them?) will rapidly figure out they are as well off without the government running. Shortly they will see they are actually BETTER off without the government running.

[bobalot]

The Republicans lost the Presidential election comprehensively*, lost house (and the popular vote in the house) and Senate seats, but they (and their retarded supporters like TimothyC) still expect total capitulation from their political opponents (otherwise they will shutdown government or crash the economy by not increasing the debt limit) . It's becoming clear that the Republicans (and people like TimothyC) literally do not recognise the legitimacy of anybody else to govern.

What I find funny is that these born-to-rule clowns haven't even considered the precedent this is setting. All the democrats need is control of the house or the senate and they can hold any future Republican administration to ransom.

*Obama was the first president of either party to secure at least 51% of the popular vote in two elections since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.

[Justice]

It's not just that we are going into government shutdown, either. It's that we are going into government shutdown with these Republicans. If it were a different set of Republicans who were asking for something reachable and had shown a willingness to actually negotiate in good faith, I don't think anyone would be getting terribly worried about how things would end.

The problem is, rather, that this set of Republicans have taken us into a government shutdown with no way out. We have no clue whether this is going to last a day, a week, or even a month because we have no clue how the Republicans are going to back out of this. This is the party that nearly breached the debt ceiling because it kept looking gift horses in the mouth (I'm sure Boehner repeats the giant compromise Obama almost gave him in his nightmares). It's that habit for irrational grandstanding that is really frightening everyone.

[bobalot]

It's not just that we are going into government shutdown, either. It's that we are going into government shutdown with these Republicans. If it were a different set of Republicans who were asking for something reachable and had shown a willingness to actually negotiate in good faith, I don't think anyone would be getting terribly worried about how things would end.

Presumably the Republicans believe that President Obama should put aside his agenda, his two electoral & popular election victories, and do what Whitey McWhite tells him to do like a good slave.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The reason for the head in the sand nature of the current Far right GOP When it comes to Obama winning two elections above 51% Popular vote, with them loosing seats constantly in the house in Senate, the reason why they seem to ignore that it happened, is because they Believe IT DIDN"T HAPPEN.
Basically its because Obama STOLE The elections! Twice!

In any election where the GOP does not win, it is because of voter fraud, rigging the polls, dead people and pets voting for the liberal candidate, and the ever present Zombie ACORN.

I mean what it comes down too is a vast population of the right who do not acknowledge the losses of their party, because in their mind, they DIDN'T Loose, but simply had the election 'Stolen' from them. Again, here in the nutbelt of Arizona, I have talked to people utterly and deeply convinced that, had it not been for Hundred of Thousands of illegible immigrants voting, Obama would have surely Lost the last election!

[Zaune]

If Obama were to give in to their demands this time, what else might they hold the country to ransom over?

[Patroklos]

The only reason we are at this point is because the Senate refusted to offer a budget, or rather refused to negotiate on one just like they are refusing now. At some point Obama and Ried forgot or can't respect that they are only 2/3s of equation. The Republicans are not holding the government hostage and they are not uncompromising, it the Democrats who brought us to this hour and refuse to negotiate at any step leading to it.

Can anyone here name any spending of note the Democratic Senate has put on the table in the past year to get a budget through before CR time?

As for the military, just like the last time this was an issue, the military friendly banks like USAA and Navy Federal offer no interest loans paid on your normal military payday in the amount of your last DFAS direct deposit. They take the corresponding backpay when it becomes available. Its a near non issue for us.

[Fiji_Fury]

This shutdown is a shameful waste of time and resources. Time and resources which are important not for some esoteric value or supposed moral high ground, but because of a larger looming issue: the U.S. debt ceiling. So long as this current dog and pony show is dragged out by recalcitrant Republicans, they are not dealing with the larger (and contentious) issue of the looming U.S. debt default on... I believe I read it was October 17th. These morons are not only holding government hostage to their minority whims and calling it "democracy" but are also in the larger picture angling to cripple the government on the basis that they don't control it. Every day the current government shut-down continues is a day less for the crucial debate and action over the U.S. debt ceiling and the Republican's next hostage-taking incident. I'm sorry. I'm sure they mean 'policy point'.

[bobalot]

The only reason we are at this point is because the Senate refusted to offer a budget, or rather refused to negotiate on one just like they are refusing now. At some point Obama and Ried forgot or can't respect that they are only 2/3s of equation. The Republicans are not holding the government hostage and they are not uncompromising, it the Democrats who brought us to this hour and refuse to negotiate at any step leading to it.

Can anyone here name any spending of note the Democratic Senate has put on the table in the past year to get a budget through before CR time?

As for the military, just like the last time this was an issue, the military friendly banks like USAA and Navy Federal offer no interest loans paid on your normal military payday in the amount of your last DFAS direct deposit. They take the corresponding backpay when it becomes available. Its a near non issue for us.

I love this, the Republitard notion of compromise is "Do what we say or we will literally attempt to bring government down or bankrupt the nation" and apparently this is not hostage taking.

[Justice]

The only reason we are at this point is because the Senate refusted to offer a budget, or rather refused to negotiate on one just like they are refusing now. At some point Obama and Ried forgot or can't respect that they are only 2/3s of equation. The Republicans are not holding the government hostage and they are not uncompromising, it the Democrats who brought us to this hour and refuse to negotiate at any step leading to it.

Uh, the Senate has passed multiple clean Continuing Resolutions. They did not bring us to this hour. The Republicans refusing to pass a CR without either outright defunding Obamacare or delaying it is what brought us to this. There's no other explanation.

[Patroklos]

This shutdown is a shameful waste of time and resources. Time and resources which are important not for some esoteric value or supposed moral high ground, but because of a larger looming issue: the U.S. debt ceiling. So long as this current dog and pony show is dragged out by recalcitrant Republicans, they are not dealing with the larger (and contentious) issue of the looming U.S. debt default on... I believe I read it was October 17th. These morons are not only holding government hostage to their minority whims and calling it "democracy" but are also in the larger picture angling to cripple the government on the basis that they don't control it. Every day the current government shut-down continues is a day less for the crucial debate and action over the U.S. debt ceiling and the Republican's next hostage-taking incident. I'm sorry. I'm sure they mean 'policy point'.

I am with you on the debt ceiling, my only stipulation is that we set next years to the exact same amount at the same time. No confrontation next year, Congress and the treasury have a set goal for budget formulation, no more "covering the debts we already made" ie "spending whatever we want because we can make a crisis out of it later" and a handy cap on spending growth.

I love this, the Republitard notion of compromise is "Do what we say or we will literally attempt to bring government down or bankrupt the nation" and apparently this is not hostage taking.

Point me to the Senate budget bill. Good luck. The CR is only a requiement because the Senate Democrats can't budget. This has been a problem with them ever since they took back that body (and the House when they had it).

Uh, the Senate has passed multiple clean Continuing Resolutions. They did not bring us to this hour. The Republicans refusing to pass a CR without either outright defunding Obamacare or delaying it is what brought us to this. There's no other explanation.

A CR is not a budget, specifically the FY14 regular budget. Where is it?

[TimothyC]

How is this a sensible or effective argument? It works just as well name-swapped the other way. "The Democrats in the Senate have voted to keep the government open twice now, all Boehner and Cruz have to do is let the elements of the ACA they find objectionable go into effect. I guess Boehner considers not having the ACA more important than funding the government."

Touche. I fully accept your argument. Now, do you accept the fact that while some Republicans consider delaying the ACA more important than giving Berry the checkbook that some Democrats feel the exact reverse?

ACA is the law of the land. The Repubs have tried more than 40 times to repeal it with no success. They challenged it in the court system all the way to the top, where the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional. They lost. Now, in a childish fit they shut down the Federal government.

I guess they consider getting their way more important than complying with the law. What do we call those sorts of people who refuse to obey the law....?

I'm not entirely clear on how trying to overturn something or get it pushed back is 'refusing to obey' it. It's being obstructionist, but it's not like they are murdering thugs out for a night on the town.

Patroklos, they did narrowly pass a budget earlier this year. They just won't negotiate on it.

[Justice]

A CR is not a budget.

Do I agree with you that the Senate Democrats should have created a budget? Absolutely, though I can understand why Reid doesn't waste time on one, since that's exactly what it would be. Similarly, while it's nice that the Republicans have proposed a budget, their budget is so fucking stupid as to be a complete waste of time and a non-starter. Sorry, I don't give two shits whether they passed it or not because it's completely unrealistic as a starting point for negotiation. They are on literal opposite sides of uselessness when it comes to creating actual workable legislation.

But, and hang with me on this...

NONE OF THAT FUCKING MATTTERS BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A DEBATE ABOUT BUDGETS.

Just because it happens to involve a government shutdown does not mean that the discussion is actually about budgets. No one believes that and acting like this is happening because the Senate Democrats didn't propose a budget misses the fact that the disagreement is not about anything other than the defunding/delaying/dismantling of Obamacare. Outside of the Obamacare stuff, the Republicans passed the exact same CR, thus rendering your argument about the Democrats not having a budget moot: They aren't looking to get a budget, they are looking to kill Obamacare.

[Magis]

How is this a sensible or effective argument? It works just as well name-swapped the other way. "The Democrats in the Senate have voted to keep the government open twice now, all Boehner and Cruz have to do is let the elements of the ACA they find objectionable go into effect. I guess Boehner considers not having the ACA more important than funding the government."

Touche. I fully accept your argument. Now, do you accept the fact that while some Republicans consider delaying the ACA more important than giving Berry the checkbook that some Democrats feel the exact reverse?

The first indicator that someone can't be taken seriously in a political discussion is when they refer to the president as Berry (or was it Barry? You apparently can't decide which).

[CJvR]

If Obama were to give in to their demands this time, what else might they hold the country to ransom over?

Obama refusing to be white perhaps. What was it the signs said? "Don't renigg in 2012!"

[Knife]

A CR is not a budget, specifically the FY14 regular budget. Where is it?

Actually the CR was based on sequestration level of spending. So, you may not think it counts but it represents a starting position from the Democrats that was less than they obviously want. To boot, I don't understand the difference between negotiations on continuing resolutions and some holy grail of a 'budget'. If a CR funds the government and dictates what levels of funding it does, wait for it, it is a budget.

Edit: Sorry fixed quote tags.

[amigocabal]

A CR is not a budget, specifically the FY14 regular budget. Where is it?

Actually the CR was based on sequestration level of spending. So, you may not think it counts but it represents a starting position from the Democrats that was less than they obviously want. To boot, I don't understand the difference between negotiations on continuing resolutions and some holy grail of a 'budget'. If a CR funds the government and dictates what levels of funding it does, wait for it, it is a budget.

Edit: Sorry fixed quote tags.

Thios does beg a question of why Congress could not pass a budget in 2009. It is not as if there were forty-one votes in the Senate to keep a filibuster alive.

More to the point, why does there have to be a budget at all? There is no part of the Constitution that requires all spending to be authorized in a single bill. In fact, Congress passed a bill to specifically fund pay for the military.

Why can not government agencies and programs be funded by stand-alone bills?

[Knife]

Most of them really are, there are usually something like 21 separate funding bills each year for 'government spending', it's really not just one huge on vote deal.