Government Shutdown

[Junior]

The guy specifically blamed the House GOP for defeating a bill that would have restored National Park funding if signed into law. That statement was categorically false, as it was the Democrats who killed it. Unlike most of the lefties on here, I'm not going to pretend that my side isn't playing political games, but I'm also not going to put up with statements that are a 180 from the truth.

 

Who blamed the GOP for defeating a bill to restore National Park funding?

[HuskerLuke]

Who blamed the GOP for defeating a bill to restore National Park funding?

 

This guy:

 

Didn't the House reject a bill that would have specifically funded (and kept open) Federal monuments and national parks?

 

Or is that something that we just ignore because it gets in the way of Luke and BRB's herpaderp-a-thon trying to convince us that starving children and mothers are inconsequential?

[zoogs]

NYTimes: Staunch group of Republicans outflanks House leaders

 

America, meet your power players. The handful of men who wanted, obtained, and are driving this shutdown effort.

 

...a hard-core group of about two dozen or so of the most conservative House members who stand in the way of a middle path for Mr. Boehner that could keep most of his party unified while pressuring the Senate to compromise. Their numbers may be small, but they are large enough to threaten the speaker’s job if he were to turn to Democrats to pass a spending bill that reopened the government without walloping the health law. Their strategy is to yield no ground until they are able to pass legislation reining in the health care law; if the federal government stays closed, so be it.

 

And they believe they are winning.

 

Rep. Steve King, Iowa, Iowa

Rep. Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho

Rep. Jeff Duncan, South Carolina

Rep. Justin Amash, Michigan

Rep. Paul Broun, Georgia

Rep. Thomas Massie, Kentucky

Rep. Matt Salmon, Arizona

Rep. David Schweikert, Ariona

Rep. Phil Gingrey, Georgia

Rep. John Fleming, Louisiana

...are the ones named in the article.

 

For nearly three years, Mr. Boehner has been vexed by an ungovernable conservative group made up of ideologically committed conservatives from safe House seats. The group has defied his leadership, rallied others to its cause and worn its gadfly status proudly. Earlier this year, the speaker disregarded them and passed three major bills that attracted only a minority of his party. Instead, he relied on Democratic votes to pass a budget plan that allowed taxes to rise on the rich, relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy and an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act.

 

And again, it's absolutely the GOP's (well, at least the House group responsible for the general shutdown) fault regarding the fast-tracked piecemeal funding measures that, despite a lot of support, fell short of 2/3 approval. No ridiculously unnecessary shutdown and that's not even a debate. You can't cause a big problem and then say "Screw you, other side, for not saving us all from part of the problem we want to continue to cause longer."

[carlfense]

Well, if you insist....

. . .

But surely House Democrats would never condone such contempt for democracy, right?

A Wisconsin state issue is your response to this?

It was your Democrats when they were out of power, that was the point of my post. There's nothing new under the sun in American politics and to pretend otherwise is either naivete or disingenuous partisan hackery.

Surely you can back this up with examples where a slim majority in the House threw this sort of tantrum over entirely constitutional, already passed and enacted legislation, right? Maybe even some within my lifetime?

If so . . .

 

 

The shutdown apparently hasn't affected security personnel (I'm assuming that's the "other employees" you're referring to), who were on hand to try to keep people away.

Security personnel would be one example. You shouldn’t have to rack your brain to come up with more.

 

 

Tweet of the day: "More security at WWII memorial than at Benghazi."

This is your GOP, people.

 

Also, BENGHAZI!!!

[carlfense]

Who blamed the GOP for defeating a bill to restore National Park funding?

 

This guy:

 

Didn't the House reject a bill that would have specifically funded (and kept open) Federal monuments and national parks?

 

Or is that something that we just ignore because it gets in the way of Luke and BRB's herpaderp-a-thon trying to convince us that starving children and mothers are inconsequential?

Heh.

[Junior]

Who blamed the GOP for defeating a bill to restore National Park funding?

 

This guy:

 

Didn't the House reject a bill that would have specifically funded (and kept open) Federal monuments and national parks?

 

Or is that something that we just ignore because it gets in the way of Luke and BRB's herpaderp-a-thon trying to convince us that starving children and mothers are inconsequential?

 

Ok, so he was wrong.

 

Still, I don't blame the Democrats one bit for blocking piecemeal funding of the Government. While it might feel nice in the short term that the two parties are "compromising", make no mistake, this was the Republican plan to get things they want opened while keeping things they dislike shuttered.

 

The Republicans wanted a government shutdown and they got it.

[HuskerLuke]

A Wisconsin state issue is your response to this?

 

Just to be clear: you endorse shutting down the legislative process when elections don't go your way? Thanks.

 

If so . . .

 

Pelosi endorsed shutting down the legislative process when elections didn't go the Democrats' way. See her statement above.

 

Security personnel would be one example. You shouldn’t have to rack your brain to come up with more.

 

Security was your excuse as to why the monuments should be closed this time when they weren't in the 90s.

[Junior]

The GOP powers that be aren't upset at all about the government shutdown.

 

http://www.washingto...b77e_story.html

 

“We’re very excited,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”

 

“It’s wonderful,” said Rep. John Abney Culberson (R-Tex.), clapping his hands to emphasize the point.

 

I hope everyone remembers these quotes when they say "blame both parties".

[Junior]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/republicans-shut-down-the-government-but-they-cant-stop-obamacare-20131001

 

Bachmann laid out the Tea Party philosophy yesterday in an interview with arch-conservative site WND.com. "President Obama can't wait to get Americans addicted to the crack cocaine of dependency on more government health care," she said. "All they want to do is buy love from people by giving them massive government subsidies."

What kind of "massive government subsidies" is Bachmann so worked up about? Programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, which will likely lose all of its funding thanks to the shutdown – potentially leaving millions of low-income women, babies and small children hungry. The same thing may happen to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, causing many more Americans to go unfed. If the shutdown continues, disabled veterans could lose their pay next.

If the Republicans are literally willing to take food out of the mouths of babies to try and stop Obamacare, is it still worth fighting them? The answer, according to Affordable Care Act supporters like Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), is absolutely yes. "That's a scandal," King recently said of Republican efforts to discourage young people from purchasing insurance. "Those people are guilty of murder in my opinion. Some of those people they persuade are going to end up dying because they don't have health insurance. For people who do that to other people in the name of some obscure political ideology is one of the grossest violations of our humanity I can think of."

[HuskerLuke]

Harry Reid on kids with cancer: let'em die.

 

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

 

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless.

 

Closing national parks? Necessary. Helping kids with cancer? Why would we want to do that? This is your Democratic Party, folks.

[knapplc]

You missed the first part of that exchange, which gets to what I bitch about around here all the time:

 

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

 

The answer, as Ms. Bash knows very well, is yes - the Democrats ARE playing the exact same game. It's a game of brinksmanship with the Republicans, and because they want their side to win, kids with cancer will suffer. Both parties are to blame for this, and anyone who adheres to either party should be ashamed of themselves.

[HuskerLuke]

The answer, as Ms. Bash knows very well, is yes - the Democrats ARE playing the exact same game. It's a game of brinksmanship with the Republicans, and because they want their side to win, kids with cancer will suffer. Both parties are to blame for this, and anyone who adheres to either party should be ashamed of themselves.

 

THANK YOU. That's really all I wanted to hear. Hyperbole and breathless accusations of how evil the other side is seems to get results better than reasoned discussion for some reason..

[zoogs]

There are some really important things not being funded right now that could be.

 

I think truth be told, everybody wants to fund everything. But they won't.

 

However, this series of piecemeal legislation is merely a tool to enable the shutdown duration to be extended. That's a tough calculation to make.

 

Right now the biggest question in my mind is why this exercise in political theater is even possible in our system of government. I'm all for defending the minority from majority oppression, but why on earth can't we enact legislation that heads these things off from even being possible? What value does the "shoot ourselves in the foot if we can't agree" option offer to the country?

 

 

[Junior]

You missed the first part of that exchange, which gets to what I bitch about around here all the time:

 

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

 

The answer, as Ms. Bash knows very well, is yes - the Democrats ARE playing the exact same game. It's a game of brinksmanship with the Republicans, and because they want their side to win, kids with cancer will suffer. Both parties are to blame for this, and anyone who adheres to either party should be ashamed of themselves.

 

I agree that its pathetic that the NIH can't treat cancer patients, and the WIC is shuttered. That both things are not considered essential is beyond my understanding. There's a simple way to fix it: pass a clean continuing resolution.

 

But there is one reason we are here. One singular reason. The right cannot accept that they lost on Obamacare. They exhausted legitimate means to stop it and resorted to this. They feel that all of the trouble brought on by this shutdown is worth it to keep poor people from getting health insurance. Make no mistake, this is the Tea Party faction wreaking havoc on our system of government and taking down a once great political party.

 

Sure, we can piecemeal back together things that should be funded and things that shouldn't during the standoff, but isn't that the point? Neither side can agree on what should be funded. Should the Democrats cave on certain issues? Maybe, but then what? Then you've legitimized this method for "governing" and nothing can ever get done. The house will do this over and over again. Hell, you've seen HuskerLuke saying it earlier in the thread, that they should do this for the debt ceiling debate too!

 

I don't believe this is me being partisan or beholden to "my party". This is me being pragmatic.

[HuskerLuke]

Hell, you've seen HuskerLuke saying it earlier in the thread, that they should do this for the debt ceiling debate too!

 

Small but important correction: I said Republicans should've done this on the debt ceiling instead. I don't want to re-litigate this point, but the debt ceiling is a much better target for this sort of stand because the odds of people getting hurt are far lower and the odds of gaining policy ground are much greater.

 

But there is one reason we are here. One singular reason. The right cannot accept that they lost on Obamacare. They exhausted legitimate means to stop it and resorted to this. They feel that all of the trouble brought on by this shutdown is worth it to keep poor people from getting health insurance. Make no mistake, this is the Tea Party faction wreaking havoc on our system of government and taking down a once great political party.

 

 

 

I don't believe this is me being partisan or beholden to "my party". This is me being pragmatic.

 

Could I get a categorical denunciation from you for what Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats did (fled to Illinois so the Republican majorities couldn't pass their agendas)? In case you were wondering, what Congressional Republicans are doing is unorthodox. What state Democrats did in Indiana and Wisconsin was actually illegal.