The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[Valmy]

Don't forget Downton Abbey.

Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey?  I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I prefer Red Dwarf and Are You Being Served.  I don't care about upper class people in general, especially snotty status obsessed Brits.

[mongers]

Don't forget Downton Abbey.

Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey?  I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.

Don't know never seen it.

Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.

[Valmy]

Don't forget Downton Abbey.

Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey?  I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.

Don't know never seen it.

Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.

I am well aware the show is not popular on Languish

I was talking about worldwide.

[Sheilbh]

Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey?  I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.

Apparently 120 million viewers. So it's about 1/3 a royal wedding

On subject this strikes me as unhelpful:

Dems decry midnight rule change
By Mike Lillis    - 10/14/13 03:32 PM ET
   
House Democrats are fuming about a rule change adopted by Republicans just before the government shut down on Oct. 1, arguing it shows GOP leaders closed agencies intentionally.

Under long-standing House rules, any member of the chamber can bring a measure to the floor. But Republicans altered the rule governing legislation to fund the government so that only House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) holds the power to make such a motion.

The practical effect of that change became apparent on Saturday, when Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tried to bring the Senate-passed continuing resolution (CR) to the floor, only to be shot down.

"That motion may be offered only by the majority leader or his designee," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who was presiding over the chamber at the time.

The response didn't sit well with Van Hollen.

"Why are the rules rigged to keep the government shut down?" he asked.

The disagreement over how to reopen the government hinges on the scope of the chambers' spending proposals, with Democrats demanding the Senate's "clean" bill and most Republicans insisting any CR must make changes to ObamaCare.

Under the standing rules of the House, any member can make a "privileged" motion "to dispose of any amendment" when a "stage of disagreement" between the House and Senate "has been reached on a bill or resolution." That privilege, though rarely used, offers a roundabout way for the minority party to force votes on the floor.

But in the last hour of Sept. 30, Republicans on the House Rules Committee altered the rule governing the CR debate so that such a motion "may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee."

Explaining the change, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) made no attempt to disguise the Republicans' motivations. The alteration was made, he said, to prevent Democrats from bringing the Senate's "clean" CR to the floor, just as Republicans were calling for a conference on the competing bills.

"There are rules related to privileged motions that could take place almost effective immediately, and we're trying to go to conference," Sessions said.

"I understand you are, but that doesn't tell me why you changed the regular order so that only Mr. Cantor can do that under the rule," Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), senior Democrat on the panel, responded.

"There could be a motion as early as tonight [and] a conference would be avoided," Sessions said. "And we want a conference. We want to have an actual discussion."

"Well, I think you've taken that away," Slaughter said of the motion option.

"That's what I'm saying, we took that away," Sessions said.

"Oh mercy, it just gets deeper and deeper," Slaughter said.

The rule passed out of the committee with every Republican voting for it and every Democrat voting against.

Saturday's exchange between Van Hollen and Chaffetz followed a similar arc, with Democrats accusing the GOP of keeping the government closed and Republicans simply invoking their rule change as a way to keep the Senate CR off the House floor.

"The Rules Committee ... changes the standing rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open the government and gave that right exclusively to the Republican leader. Is that right?" Van Hollen asked.

"The House adopted that resolution," Chaffetz said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328413-dems-decry-midnight-rule-change#ixzz2hkLP4nHg
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[garbon]

On subject this strikes me as unhelpful:

What was Mr. Van Hollen thinking?

[mongers]

I see some of these republicans as having a similar agenda to the occupy wall street crowd, namely they want to bring down 'the system'. 

Though clearly they have different visions of what should replace it.

[CountDeMoney]

Don't forget Downton Abbey.

Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey?  I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.

Don't know never seen it.

Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.

I am well aware the show is not popular on Languish

I was talking about worldwide.

Stupid Brit Bronte porn.

[OttoVonBismarck]

They weren't keen on Paul Ryan's recent suggestions. I think some are worried about distributing government rather than just size. They don't like transfers to the 'undeserving' which Obamacare falls under while Social Security and Medicare doesn't. I think there's an element of racial anxiety there and a political fear that the Democrats are basically setting up programs that others will pay for to buy votes. The same fears I think motivate some of the opposition from tea partiers to immigration reform. You bring/buy off (predominately minority) voters and build a permanent Democratic majority that can change America - and Obama perfectly represents that: the most culturally elitist President in generations, a man who doesn't even feign to be folksy.

I don't think it's meant in a negative way. I think there's a genuine fear that the Democrats are trying to create dependant voters. I think there's an element of race and age in that view, but that isn't, I don't think, the motivator.

This is at core as to why I'm still a Republican instead of identifying as an independent or even a "centrist Democrat." My positions have honestly not changed much over the years, I was a Republican in the George H.W. Bush mold when he was President and I'm basically the same guy now. I'm deeply opposed to abortion as a moral issue, but am "meh" on it as a legal issue. [Incidentally rumors have always persisted the Bushes are privately in favor of legalized abortion.] I've always been in favor of letting homofags marry, but I do strategically argue the opposite point for trolling purposes because nothing is better than fag-baiting on a message board. I never approved of DADT while I was in the military or after.

Probably the only position I've meaningfully changed on is gun control. I've always been an elitist Republican, not a libertarian Republican, but on the issue of guns I felt people had an intrinsic right to own them and possess them. Constitutionally I felt this was undeniable, so even if I had not felt that way, my originalist leanings (leanings, I'm not a true originalist) would make me argue that even if we wanted to restrict gun rights we'd need a constitutional amendment. I've generally supported mandatory background checks and even gun licensure, but that was about the limit of where I wanted to go. But in the past few years I've come to feel most Americans are too stupid to own guns, and only a small carefully selected minority should be allowed to own them. I'd let anyone who was military, police, ex-military or ex-police (assuming their service wasn't ended for misconduct) own/possess by default and everyone else would need to jump through hoops akin to what the Germans put people through to get guns.

I've always been strongly pro-business, but the Democrats really are too these days, just a different selection of businesses at times. I am in favor of reasonable fiscal policy, to me that means debt shouldn't be allowed to grow as fast as it has been, and we should increase revenue a good bit and slightly trim spending to get it back under control. I reject Krugman/Keynesian nonsense in that regard. But that's honestly the Democrats position on fiscal policy these days (although Obama has strong spend-like-crazy tendencies that the House Republicans have to a large degree checked.) The Republican position is to basically cut and never raise revenue, which isn't workable.

On the balance most of my positions wouldn't be out of place in the Democratic party, but for the fact I think very much that the Democrats are basically trying to buy votes by associating themselves as the party that gives free shit to minorities, women, and the poor (which are mostly minorities and women.) I dislike that, and to be honest I don't think the very poor should be allowed to vote at all.

[garbon]

Don't forget Downton Abbey.

Does the whole world really love Downton Abbey?  I figured it was just us Americans and our hard-on for British Aristocracy.

Don't know never seen it.

Rather like DW i'm generally not enamoured of dramas/comdies about the upper classe.
Besides there's plenty of other Brit comedy to choose from be it 'The Young Ones', 'Porridge', 'Dad's Army' and lots of modern stuff I've not yet gotten around to seeing.

I am well aware the show is not popular on Languish

I was talking about worldwide.

Stupid Brit Bronte porn.

I think Anne Bronte is rather nice.

[CountDeMoney]

This is so awesome.  We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us.

[Sheilbh]

My understanding is that there are worries that even if a deal's reached it may not be passed in time due to procedural rules in Congress. Anyone know about that?

[Eddie Teach]

This is so awesome.  We're gonna go over the cliff, and take the stock markets and global economies with us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

[OttoVonBismarck]

My understanding is that there are worries that even if a deal's reached it may not be passed in time due to procedural rules in Congress. Anyone know about that?

The Senate is a bitch to move legislation through because of its arcane procedures, you can legitimately end up in a situation where House legislation goes to the Senate and it is procedurally nigh-impossible (without changes to Senate rules) to get that legislation through the Senate without lengthy processes that can't be easily rushed. The reverse is not so much true, the House can pretty quickly pass Senate legislation.

I'm not sure if it's happened yet, but Reid needs to gets his plan passed by the Senate now, and Boehner can then approve it at anytime and it'll be voted on (including last minute.) The reverse isn't true, if the House is genuinely not going to accept the Senate plan, and the Senate isn't going to accept the current House plan, then any revised House plan that isn't sent to the Senate probably today will likely not be passed by midnight Thursday.

[Sheilbh]

Okay. The reports I've read on Republican thinking (from National Review's Robert Costa who's outstanding) are that the Senate deal will pass, but House Republicans want to amend it. How quickly can the two be reconciled? Or does the compromise between the two have to passed by House and Senate again?