US government Shutdown

[Broomstick]

Alright, point is, nothing has gotten through Congress and therefore the PotUS hasn't entered into the decision process here.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This is nothing more than President Barry throwing a fit because he isn't getting his way.

Seems to me it's mostly Congress throwing a fit, and no one here is impressed or amused at calling the PotUS "Barry".

I do find it a little humorous (though mostly sad) that the idea of the President wanting to go into effect the entirety of a bill that passed both chambers of Congress, failed to sink a president's re-election and even survived constitutional muster from one of the most conservative courts we've had in modern history is somehow "not getting his way".

[TimothyC]

Then, when people pointed this out to you, you shifted the goalposts and raised the issue of the donor list disclosure.

The issue with NOM was always the donor list disclosure. Others brought up their actions in the past as mitigating circumstances - or rather as a distraction. I had brought up NOM as an instance of corruption in the IRS.

Put another way: if the police arrest a drug dealer, and there is a scandal because one of the policemen stole some of the drugs and sold them on the black market, that does NOT mean the arrest was wrongful, or does not belong in jail.

To take that analogy out further, the fact that the police stole the drugs from a drug dealer doesn't make him selling them on the black market acceptable.

Yes, we do. And we should- but instead, we have this endless shit-flinging from the House, because they're so busy declaring war on all nonmilitary spending that we can't actually negotiate intelligently about how to keep costs under control.

If this were a spending issue, rather than a grandstanding issue, then Boehner should have, years ago sent a team to meet with the Senate who were empowered to negotiate this issue like grownups.

He did. Every year the House has passed a budget. The Senate has refused to negotiate on this budget. It's not a budget that Barry or Harry would like, but they are budgets, which is what the House has to do.

But the shot across the bows was ignored, and as a result the ship of state has run into something it would be better off not having encountered.

It was ignored by people on the right because it forced cuts that people on the right wanted. The issue was they were not smart cuts, which some people on the right didn't care about.

I repeat, the federal government cannot be responsible for events that occur on federal land, when it cannot effectively police federal land, because the people responsible for doing so aren't getting paid.

The Park stayed open in 1995 and 1996 - so that's not the issue. How about how the NPS tried to close Mount Vernon?

Since this shutdown might well continue indefinitely, there is no responsible, effective way to secure the federal lands except to bar random citizens from them.

What will happen if the shutdown goes long enough that the District of Columbia runs out of local funds to keep monuments open? Will the Park Service have to force its employees to work without pay to ensure that the sites close and stay closed? Since they cannot, by law, do that, they must close the sites now, while they have the chance.

I'm sorry for not being clear. I was not talking about DC using local funds to keep the NPS facilities open. The Federal District can't use local funds to pay for local services like Cops of Firefighters in the district. The House voted on a resolution that would let them do so for the next 45 days, but the Senate shows no sign of taking up and passing that resolution.

The line from Barry and Harry is that they don't want multiple CRs to keep parts of the government funded - but that's bullshit because on Monday they passed (and signed) one so that uniformed military will be paid.

Hell, You're getting bipartisan votes in the House to fund the NPS and other agencies in DC, and to let DC spend local resources for local needs, but Harry Reid won't let a vote on those happen, and President Barry has said he'll veto them - all while Eleanor Holmes Norton has been crying on the House floor to get the Senate to fucking do their jobs and vote on the partial bills.

Hey, fuckwit - the President can't sign the bill until it passes BOTH the House and Senate. Why aren't you whining about the Senate blocking the bills, or are you so intent on your partisan bias that it has escaped your notice that the Senate hasn't passed jack so there's nothing for the PotUS to sign or veto?

Oh, so all of the comments I've made that blame Harry Reid for his part have been ignored.

Seems to me it's mostly Congress throwing a fit, and no one here is impressed or amused at calling the PotUS "Barry".

First, it's Barry and Harry working together to block funding. Second, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's not so much fun when it's your side being denigrated with a nickname is it?
Also, I blame the President for his administration's actions in shutting down things that he really shouldn't be.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Indeed so Pinto,
The ACA is basically the one and so far ONLY piece of truly ground breaking legislation that Obama could see as being his "Legacy"
It is (IMHO) one of the most single important and ground breaking laws passed so far, and for the past four years, the GOP have basically wanted to destroy it at every turn.

Imagine someone going up to you and telling you they want to break a priceless family heirloom.
They try to break it over and over and over. Finally they tell you if you don't let them break it, they will do other horrible things to you.
When you STILL refuse to let them break it, they say that YOU are "throwing a fit" and "acting like a child" because you won't negotiate a way for them to smash your treasured item.

I have this vision in my mind of a Tea Party congressmen scratching his head going:
"I just don't understand why Obama is so against us working out a bipartisan way of smashing his most prized possession!"

EDIT: I hate to play devils advocate, but there is ONE Thing I need to point out...
While we may scoff and sneer at someone calling Obama "Barry" how many of us called the last President "Dubya" or "Shrub" without flinching?

[Simon_Jester]

Then, when people pointed this out to you, you shifted the goalposts and raised the issue of the donor list disclosure.

The issue with NOM was always the donor list disclosure. Others brought up their actions in the past as mitigating circumstances - or rather as a distraction. I had brought up NOM as an instance of corruption in the IRS.

Ah. So it was, then, evidence that the IRS was corrupt, and therefore wrong to investigate the conservative 'nonprofits?'

Put another way: if the police arrest a drug dealer, and there is a scandal because one of the policemen stole some of the drugs and sold them on the black market, that does NOT mean the arrest was wrongful, or does not belong in jail.

To take that analogy out further, the fact that the police stole the drugs from a drug dealer doesn't make him selling them on the black market acceptable.

Sure, but your original point here is that the IRS is systematically biased against conservative organizations. Now you've moved to a position of saying that the IRS is corrupt because some individual committed an illegal act. Frankly, that just takes one IRS clerk who resents their actively gay-bashing behavior, for any of a number of reasons. It doesn't reflect the IRS's overall policies.

You're quite right that it's wrong for the individual cop to sell evidence on the black market- but it doesn't reflect on the department as a whole, unless we can prove that there is a pattern of this happening due to deliberately sloppy hiring practices or evidence-handling.

Yes, we do. And we should- but instead, we have this endless shit-flinging from the House, because they're so busy declaring war on all nonmilitary spending that we can't actually negotiate intelligently about how to keep costs under control.

If this were a spending issue, rather than a grandstanding issue, then Boehner should have, years ago sent a team to meet with the Senate who were empowered to negotiate this issue like grownups.

He did. Every year the House has passed a budget. The Senate has refused to negotiate on this budget. It's not a budget that Barry or Harry would like, but they are budgets, which is what the House has to do.

Let's try a gedankenexperiment. If Boehner wants to pass an anarchist budget ("zero dollars for everything!"), should the Senate Democrats be expected to meet him halfway and fund only 50% of the government? I would think 'no.' That is not a grownup negotiating tactic.

If Boehner is willing to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in social services and infrastructure and research programs, it's at least closer to grownup tactics, but it's still a long way from it, especially if on this and related issues the House has made it very clear they will not deviate significantly from their pre-published budget in any way.

At that point, no, the House cannot reasonably expect to be rewarded for simply churning out farcical 'budgets' based on lunatic economic predictions and delusional economic theories, then tossing them at the Senate with a "my way or the highway, loser."

I swear, the whole thing reminds me of a kid who complains that I won't meet him halfway because he wants to turn in none of his homework and I won't compromise with him on half of his homework, turned in late, and incomplete.

But the shot across the bows was ignored, and as a result the ship of state has run into something it would be better off not having encountered.

It was ignored by people on the right because it forced cuts that people on the right wanted. The issue was they were not smart cuts, which some people on the right didn't care about.

In that case, it was a bad tactic- but it hardly speaks well of the people in question on the right that they don't give a damn if the budget gets randomly and mindlessly chainsawed.

How the hell are you supposed to take a person like that and include them in a responsible dialogue to come up with serious plans about how to govern a major country, anyway?

I repeat, the federal government cannot be responsible for events that occur on federal land, when it cannot effectively police federal land, because the people responsible for doing so aren't getting paid.

The Park stayed open in 1995 and 1996 - so that's not the issue. How about how the NPS tried to close Mount Vernon?

Not knowing the details of how or by what jugglery the park stayed open in 1995-6, I cannot comment on that. As far as I'm concerned, it is quite simple: if you have any desire not to see federal-run, federal-staffed, or federal-funded parks close, you have two choices.

1) Do not shut down the United States government.
2) Find someone else to run the damn park; don't expect the United States government to do it for you when you're not even willing to permit said government to operate, without harassing it with random shutdowns because your political agenda isn't going like you'd planned in 2008.

In other words, you can pick up your own damn trash, or you can ask someone else to do it for you- but don't expect them to do it without pay, even if theoretically they could, even if they did before. You may not know exactly what it costs them to do it, or what the long term consequences will be.

If you want the park facilities to stay open, you really should be willing to let someone else pay for them all the time, rather than asking the feds to do it for you.

I'm sorry for not being clear. I was not talking about DC using local funds to keep the NPS facilities open. The Federal District can't use local funds to pay for local services like Cops of Firefighters in the district. The House voted on a resolution that would let them do so for the next 45 days, but the Senate shows no sign of taking up and passing that resolution.

The line from Barry and Harry is that they don't want multiple CRs to keep parts of the government funded - but that's bullshit because on Monday they passed (and signed) one so that uniformed military will be paid.

Could you provide information from a neutral news service on this?

Hell, You're getting bipartisan votes in the House to fund the NPS and other agencies in DC, and to let DC spend local resources for local needs, but Harry Reid won't let a vote on those happen, and President Barry has said he'll veto them - all while Eleanor Holmes Norton has been crying on the House floor to get the Senate to fucking do their jobs and vote on the partial bills.

I wonder what would happen here if DC were a state. But that is just an idle thought.

Hey, fuckwit - the President can't sign the bill until it passes BOTH the House and Senate. Why aren't you whining about the Senate blocking the bills, or are you so intent on your partisan bias that it has escaped your notice that the Senate hasn't passed jack so there's nothing for the PotUS to sign or veto?

Oh, so all of the comments I've made that blame Harry Reid for his part have been ignored.

Yes, because they got lost in the clutter from all the comments you've made that blame Barack Obama.

First, it's Barry and Harry working together to block funding. Second, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's not so much fun when it's your side being denigrated with a nickname is it?

Since no one except you is doing it in this thread, you're kind of conspicuous, in a stupidly giggling way.

EDIT: I hate to play devils advocate, but there is ONE Thing I need to point out...
While we may scoff and sneer at someone calling Obama "Barry" how many of us called the last President "Dubya" or "Shrub" without flinching?

I doubt I ever did on this forum, but let me do a search... nope. I know I've never been one to use "Shrub," and "Dubya" appears in my posts only when I'm quoting other people. Hell, while I was at it, I even searched the other forum I was ever anything like this active on, during the Bush years... couldn't find anything there either.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Fair enough then matie. I know I used it during his time in office so it did give me pause.
Kudos to you if you were able to refrain .

[TimothyC]

If Boehner is willing to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in social services and infrastructure and research programs, it's at least closer to grownup tactics, but it's still a long way from it, especially if on this and related issues the House has made it very clear they will not deviate significantly from their pre-published budget in any way.

At that point, no, the House cannot reasonably expect to be rewarded for simply churning out farcical 'budgets' based on lunatic economic predictions and delusional economic theories, then tossing them at the Senate with a "my way or the highway, loser."

I swear, the whole thing reminds me of a kid who complains that I won't meet him halfway because he wants to turn in none of his homework and I won't compromise with him on half of his homework, turned in late, and incomplete.

Simon. The House Budget was $3500 billion, while the Senate Budget was $3700 billion, and Obama's proposed budget was $3770 billion. The house plan called for a reduction in discretionary spending to 2008 levels (after they grew by over 13% in 2009). The problem is over about 10% of the discretionary budget.

Not knowing the details of how or by what jugglery the park stayed open in 1995-6, I cannot comment on that. As far as I'm concerned, it is quite simple: if you have any desire not to see federal-run, federal-staffed, or federal-funded parks close, you have two choices.

1) Do not shut down the United States government.
2) Find someone else to run the damn park; don't expect the United States government to do it for you when you're not even willing to permit said government to operate, without harassing it with random shutdowns because your political agenda isn't going like you'd planned in 2008.

To be clear - I dislike the shut down. I don't like having the NPS close facilities around the country, I'm a fan of smart government, and I think the NPS fills a need for this country. I am however tired of the one-sidedness of the 'discussion' here.

Could you provide information from a neutral news service on this?

Sure. NBC has covered it

As an aside, an example of a bill that President Obama signed is noted in this Stars and Stripes article. In short, it makes a lie out of Obama's claim that he veto piecemeal spending bills.

Since no one except you is doing it in this thread, you're kind of conspicuous, in a stupidly giggling way.

I'll address this below

EDIT: I hate to play devils advocate, but there is ONE Thing I need to point out...
While we may scoff and sneer at someone calling Obama "Barry" how many of us called the last President "Dubya" or "Shrub" without flinching?

Thank you, for that's what I wanted. Now that someone has finally admitted that it's the same thing, I feel like I can drop it. (as you may or may not note in the above post).

[Zaune]

Come to think of it, didn't he actually introduce himself as Barry when he was in college?

[Simon_Jester]

Simon. The House Budget was $3500 billion, while the Senate Budget was $3700 billion, and Obama's proposed budget was $3770 billion. The house plan called for a reduction in discretionary spending to 2008 levels (after they grew by over 13% in 2009). The problem is over about 10% of the discretionary budget.

My fundamental question is, what, specifically, was being cut? It matters, because a budget can't be as vague as "cut discretionary spending by 10%" and be meaningful. How did the Republicans propose to implement the desired cuts? What wasn't going to get funded?

While we're at it, how much openness did the Republicans express to, say, balancing tax hikes and spending cuts to avoid accidentally destroying important positive multiplier effects, or things needed for America's long term financial health?

That last question matters on a second-order basis, because it tells us how practical it would have been for the Democrats to even try to engage with this budget proposal. Under present circumstances and GINI coefficient, refusing to countenance tax hikes for millionaires is enough to make anyone who is less than far right-of-center by global standards say "surely you must be joking."

The last time I checked, the Republicans would downvote a plan if it involved so much as one dollar of tax increase per ten dollars of spending cuts. That is not the position of someone who seriously intends to negotiate in good faith. That's the position of someone who either doesn't want to compromise at all, or can't guarantee enough votes for a compromise from their own party to carry the bill in the House.

In the former case it's not worth talking to Boehner, in the latter case, Boehner should damn well admit that he's lost control over the radical wing of his own party and try to put together some kind of pragmatist centrist coalition in the name of expedience and actually getting SOME of what he wants.

To be clear - I dislike the shut down. I don't like having the NPS close facilities around the country, I'm a fan of smart government, and I think the NPS fills a need for this country. I am however tired of the one-sidedness of the 'discussion' here.

Fair enough- but consider the scale of the... allegedly spiteful actions by the administration and Senate (to avoid softening the impact of the closure), relative to the scale of the closure itself.

There is a major difference of raw scale here.

Could you provide information from a neutral news service on this?

Sure. NBC has covered it

As an aside, an example of a bill that President Obama signed is noted in this Stars and Stripes article. In short, it makes a lie out of Obama's claim that he veto piecemeal spending bills.

Is it fundamentally dishonest to make a single exception to pay the military*, and then not want to make a host of secondary exceptions specifically to allow the Republicans to avoid the unpleasant side-effects of the shutdown on their constituents?

*There are so many precedents for armies staging coups when they don't get paid, that it isn't even remotely funny...

[Irbis]

Negotiate? We're dealing with an administration that is closing a park that has not received federal funding in decades because it's on federal land, and is preventing DC from spending local funds to stay open - and has refused to pass a bill that would allow DC to do so. This is nothing more than President Barry throwing a fit because he isn't getting his way.

"Throwing a fit"?

Care to explain just why Obama and sane part of US legislature should let Tea Fundies paper over worst, most visible damage of shit they caused? So Fox Lies could gloat how harmless the shutdown is and how heroic Tea Shitstains are? The shutdown proceeds to show the voters just how idiotic and unfit to be anywhere near DC Republithugs are, and letting them throw more smoke and mirrors isn't in interest of anyone sane.

Are you seriously asking why exception was made to large mob with guns that largely breathes NRA propaganda anyway so there was no point to show them reality, too?

Thank you, for that's what I wanted. Now that someone has finally admitted that it's the same thing, I feel like I can drop it. (as you may or may not note in the above post).

No, calling an imbecile 'idiot' is nowhere near calling sane, normal man so. Anyone but blind right wingers would see it. Same with say 'policy' Republithugs have towards atheists or homosexuals, killing all their legal and human rights that they rightfully should have does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as what the left proposes, yet right wingers insists their scum is worth considering, much less looking at

[Tiriol]

Are you seriously asking why exception was made to large mob with guns that largely breathes NRA propaganda anyway so there was no point to show them reality, too?

Are you referring to the US Army with "large mob with guns that largely breathes NRA propaganda" comment?

[Raw Shark]

Come to think of it, didn't he actually introduce himself as Barry when he was in college?

I've heard that it was his actual nickname as a kid in an interview or something, yeah, supposedly started by his grandma. That, plus making me think of Barry White, are the two reasons why I just can't find it provocative (sorry, Tim).

[Gandalf]

Come to think of it, didn't he actually introduce himself as Barry when he was in college?

I've heard that it was his actual nickname as a kid in an interview or something, yeah, supposedly started by his grandma. That, plus making me think of Barry White, are the two reasons why I just can't find it provocative (sorry, Tim).

It's hard for the right to come up with decent nicknames for Obama in a diverse environment without making it look like they're having a go at his heritage. So... Barry is pretty much the best they can do.

What he's called in in a more right wing environment of course is different. They're still smarting from having to deal with eight years of Bush jokes.

[Irbis]

Are you referring to the US Army with "large mob with guns that largely breathes NRA propaganda" comment?

Ok, maybe that is not fair usage for it's entirety, but I sometimes peruse big forums of US armed forces/sympathetics called Militaryphotos.net (one thing they have are photos/movies you can't find anywhere else) and most of the time I close it after a few minutes facepalming at the stupidity and disconnection from reality of 95% of posters. It has all, from glorifying war criminals (complete with calling every investigation in Afghanistan/Iraq/Gitmo 'stupid joke'), callous racism towards everyone non-WASP, calls for military coup/privatization of US army (because everyone knows private run things are GOOD™), latching to any militia-born moronic idea (such as 3-percenters) and much more.

What I would call a 'mob with guns that largely breathes NRA propaganda' would be people with exactly such mindset - mob because they hate chain of command (triply so for civilian supervision) and as for NRA part, the board is so rabid this week they openly discussed walking in groups with guns in the open to Starbucks stores with stickers forbidding guns claiming it's "unconstitutional" As far as I can tell, large numbers of lower ranks do think similarly, so IMHO the description would be at least partly justified, people I'd call sane are in definite minority and wouldn't need convincing anyway.

[Broomstick]

Hey, fuckwit - the President can't sign the bill until it passes BOTH the House and Senate. Why aren't you whining about the Senate blocking the bills, or are you so intent on your partisan bias that it has escaped your notice that the Senate hasn't passed jack so there's nothing for the PotUS to sign or veto?

Oh, so all of the comments I've made that blame Harry Reid for his part have been ignored.

I wasn't addressing your comments regarding Reid, I was addressing your comments regarding Obama. Until Congress - both sides - passes something the President doesn't enter into the "voting". Blaming this on Obama is wrong-headed until it actually reaches his desk. Yes, Obama has stated his position but since Congress does have the power to overrule his veto his power to reject legislation is not infinite. If Congress overrules a presidential veto then Obama must comply, so, in the end, it really is on Congress to get this fixed.

Seems to me it's mostly Congress throwing a fit, and no one here is impressed or amused at calling the PotUS "Barry".

First, it's Barry and Harry working together to block funding. Second, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's not so much fun when it's your side being denigrated with a nickname is it?
Also, I blame the President for his administration's actions in shutting down things that he really shouldn't be.

I blame the Tea Party for being so fucking obstructionist.

When a law (not a bill, a LAW) has been passed, approved the Supreme Court, and attempts to overturn have failed forty times and more it's time to suck it up and admit defeat. Failure to do so shows an appalling disconnect with reality. I find it disturbing, even frightening, that such delusional people have acquired such power in this country that they can bring the Federal government to a halt.

And what do you mean by "shutting down thing he really shouldn't be"? There is no funding for those things. That's why they are shut down. There is no money in the checking account. Keeping those functions open when there is no funding is deliberately writing rubber checks. That these things shouldn't be shut down is the fucking point - these Tea Party idiots who think we're better off without government are WRONG - we do need government, we need it to provide those services you are now whining are shut down. That is the fault not of Obama, it's the fault of those in Congress who are willing to throw the US under the bus rather than admit defeat on one of their positions. Stop trying to shift blame here. This is the fault of the conservative, far-right assholes in the Republican party.

As far as nicknames go - when Bush II supporters voice objection to "Shrub" I stop using it. It's not so much "fun" as it detracts from keeping the debate rational. But hey, shithead, if you want to go down the merry road of name-calling we can do that...

[Broomstick]

Come to think of it, didn't he actually introduce himself as Barry when he was in college?

Yeah, but that had a lot to do with the attitude of many Americans about "funny" names. Obama made a decision to run as Barack Obama, not Barry, and didn't flinch at being inaugurated as Barack Hussein Obama despite the negative baggage of a name perceived as Muslim so I will respect his apparent desire in regards to his name at present.

[energiewende]

And what do you mean by "shutting down thing he really shouldn't be"? There is no funding for those things. That's why they are shut down. There is no money in the checking account. Keeping those functions open when there is no funding is deliberately writing rubber checks.

A lot of the government has been written rubber checks and told to keep coming to work. The shut-down is partial at most. I'm not sure what specifically he thinks is important that was shut down that shouldn't have been but the executive did have considerable latitude in this regard.



As far as apportioning blame, the pro-ACA party controls the House and the anti-ACA party controls the Senate. The two bodies are constitutionally designed to be equal in so far as approval for appropriations go. The fact that the ACA has been passed does not bind future Congress of different composition to retain and fund it. So I am not sure that this can be blamed on one side specifically. I certainly understand that Obama does not want to surrender the only real accomplishment of his time in office, but the Office of the President has no say in passing appropriations bills, so the fact that ACA is supported by the President is irrelevant.

[Justice]

As far as apportioning blame, the pro-ACA party controls the House and the anti-ACA party controls the Senate. The two bodies are constitutionally designed to be equal in so far as approval for appropriations go. The fact that the ACA has been passed does not bind future Congress of different composition to retain and fund it. So I am not sure that this can be blamed on one side specifically. I certainly understand that Obama does not want to surrender the only real accomplishment of his time in office, but the Office of the President has no say in passing appropriations bills, so the fact that ACA is supported by the President is irrelevant.

19 Republicans have openly declared they are willing to vote for a Clean CR if it comes up, allowing it to pass the House. That is the version that the Democrats want in the Senate. John Boehner refuses to bring it up. Considering that the Republican versions of CRs will not pass the Senate or get signed by the President, the clean CR is the only version that has the votes to actually become a law. Since the Republican leadership is preventing it from coming to the floor because they are trying to extract concession from the Democrats, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that the Republicans aren't causing the shutdown.

[Fiji_Fury]

When a law (not a bill, a LAW) has been passed, approved the Supreme Court, and attempts to overturn have failed forty times and more it's time to suck it up and admit defeat. Failure to do so shows an appalling disconnect with reality.

This is exactly the point that has me baffled. The Republicans wanted the Affordable Health Care Act (or ACA which everyone is calling "Obamacare" including CNN... what news-worthy reporting) torched from day 1. They opposed it in the House of Representatives when it was introduced as a bill and it passed. They opposed it in the Senate as a bill. It passed. They opposed it through legal channels, challenging it in Federal Court and claiming it was unconstitutional until the case made its way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional. They've tried other legislative and budgetary tricks dozens of time to limit and alter funding for the Affordable Health Care Act which have failed. For years.

Now they are hurting the US populace via its government by crippling the governments day-to-day budget which has resulted in shut-down of many services. All the while, they continue to wage a political partisan battle that is a side-show which they have already lost dozens of times. In the background loom actual problems which they have conflated with the Affordable Health Care Act: US Government Debt Levels, the US Government Deficit and the immanent debt ceiling which must be addressed by October 17 or the United States Government will begin to default on debt financing payments. This is a real problem and it has been hijacked by the grandstanding, Tea-Party driven, ideological and vitriolic temper-tantrum that the Republican party (especially in the House of Representatives) is now throwing.

Claims that the Democrats are also at fault for not negotiating reek of a Black-White fallacy under this particular circumstance. Claims that Barrack Obama is not "involved" enough reek of attempts to excuse negligent behavior and terrible judgment by House Republicans by deflecting responsibility from the primary actors (wait for it... House Republicans).

I speak as an outsider, not an American. But from here the view is crystal clear: the Republican party, particularly its "Tea-Party" members, are making deliberate choices to sabotage the functioning of government in an ill-advised ideological ploy. Their "everything we demand or nothing happens" approach is dysfunctional.

[energiewende]

It doesn't seem that anything the Senate has done exceeds the powers granted it by the constitution or is proceedurally incorrect. Either party can end the confrontation by giving in. Neither wants to so who is to blame is basically just a function of whether you think ACA is the New Jerusalem or the work of the Devil. This is separation of powers in action.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It doesn't seem that anything the Senate has done exceeds the powers granted it by the constitution or is proceedurally incorrect. Either party can end the confrontation by giving in. Neither wants to so who is to blame is basically just a function of whether you think ACA is the New Jerusalem or the work of the Devil. This is separation of powers in action.

No it doesn't work like that..
I am sorry but no matter HOW bad you think a LAW is, you do not try and stop it by this fashion.
If you think a Supreme Court upheld Law is "The Work of The Devil" then you try to change that law with other laws. You try and pass bills that will actually PASS. Ones that go through House AND Senate. You do NOT try and stop a law by holding a gun to the head of the country and say "Pass this OR ELSE!"

Lets be honest, the REAL Reason why the GOP is so terrified of the ACA is because deep down they are in pants wetting terror that once fully implemented, it will actually HELP America, and America in return, will start to think it is a GOOD thing to have!

[Executor32]

On the topic of nicknames, there is a significant difference between calling Bush "Dubya" or "Shrub", and calling Obama "Barry". The former is usually lighthearted and pretty innocent; the latter implies, to me at least, that the poster is a Birther, given their fixation with "Barry Soetoro". So, if someone calls the President "Obummer", while I may not think it's particularly clever, I'll still listen to what they have to say. If they call him "President Barry" or any of the other Birfer codenames, they are no longer worthy of my time and I write them off as just another loon.

[energiewende]

It doesn't seem that anything the Senate has done exceeds the powers granted it by the constitution or is proceedurally incorrect. Either party can end the confrontation by giving in. Neither wants to so who is to blame is basically just a function of whether you think ACA is the New Jerusalem or the work of the Devil. This is separation of powers in action.

No it doesn't work like that..
I am sorry but no matter HOW bad you think a LAW is, you do not try and stop it by this fashion.

The law that has been passed does not grant rolling appropriations. In a similar way, the law authorises the existence of the US Army but does not mandate that Congress funds it as the President likes. If Bush had demanded another however many billions for the US Army and the Democrats controlled the Senate, they could have done the same, or demanded Bush make some other political concession in order to get his Army money. I suspect who is taking a principled stand and who is a reckless opportunity would also in that case come down to respective views on the goodness of the army.

If you think a Supreme Court upheld Law is "The Work of The Devil" then you try to change that law with other laws.

Which is what they're doing.

You try and pass bills that will actually PASS. Ones that go through House AND Senate. You do NOT try and stop a law by holding a gun to the head of the country and say "Pass this OR ELSE!"

Lets be honest, the REAL Reason why the GOP is so terrified of the ACA is because deep down they are in pants wetting terror that once fully implemented, it will actually HELP America, and America in return, will start to think it is a GOOD thing to have!

I'm not sure; to win this issue the Republicans need an alternative plan or a coherent defence of the status quo and they don't seem to have either. They don't like this law for some good and some bad reasons, but I don't think there is any coherent strategy involved.

[Broken]

One of the biggest problems is that Boehner is one of the weakest Speakers in living memory. He is so terrified of his Tea Party back-benchers (or suicide caucus as I've seen it referred to) and his continued use of the "Hastert Rule" to not bring up any legislation not pre-approved by a majority of the Republican House membership has effectively made any retreat impossible. They are trapped in their own "compromise is evil" mindset and even the Wall Street gang is getting worried that they have so little control over the Tea Party members in the House.

And lets be honest here. This is a Republican monster, born and bred. The "budgets" the House has passed in the last few years were all based on Paul Ryan's work. That was one of the centerpieces of Romney's presidential campaign and the American public rejected it. Every attempt at compromise or even a "Grand Bargain" in the last few years has been sabotaged by fact that every time taxes and revenue increases are put on the table, the Republicans walk out of the room. Because Boehner knows he can't pass any of that through the House without major support from the Democrats, which is a poison pill since that would likely spell the end of Boehner's speakership. The 2012 election saw the GOP lose seats in the House, in the Senate, and lost the Presidential election. But apparently "elections have consequences" only applies to Democrats not Republicans. If the Republican Party wants to change the ACA then they have to win elections, not start taking hostages.

[White Haven]

Boehner: 'All we want is a simple discussion.'

Direct quote from an interview I just heard. I'm sorry, what do you think the huge, raging national debate about the specifics of the ACA was? We had this discussion already. This discussion has a lot to do with the lack of a public option in the ACA. Been there, discussed that.