The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[Admiral Yi]

What do you think? Does it make sense or not?

From what I understand egregiously gerrymandered districts only exist in 6 GOP-majority states (and Illinois, a Democratic-majority state).

I don't think a majority of House seats can logically be safe GOP seats.

[Jacob]

See, that cuts both ways.  It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.

Seems like the traditional way to address that in a democracy is to negotiate changes to the implementation through the normal legislative process.

[Jacob]

From what I understand egregiously gerrymandered districts only exist in 6 GOP-majority states (and Illinois, a Democratic-majority state).

I don't think a majority of House seats can logically be safe GOP seats.

You have a better read on the number of GOP safe seats than I do.

To clarify though, when it was put forward to me the argument wasn't that all GOP safe seats were such due to gerrymandering, but that gerrymandering increased the number of safe seats. In support of that, I was told that for Congress, the Democrats received the majority of the popular vote but the Republicans nonetheless received the majority of representatives.

[grumbler]

You win Raz.

And you win, as well.

[derspiess]

See, that cuts both ways.  It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.

Seems like the traditional way to address that in a democracy is to negotiate changes to the implementation through the normal legislative process.

Okay.

[merithyn]

See, that cuts both ways.  It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.

Of course they don't. I'm one of the biggest proponents for socialized healthcare in the US, and I hate the way it's been written.

But people don't want it repealed, either. And that's what these idiots are trying to do. They're not saying, "Hey, let's work on this law. Let's make it something that will actually work well for everyone."

[lustindarkness]

You win Raz.

And you win, as well.

Nobody wins in this mess.

[Rasputin]

There's a question of the best way to go about doing that.  Plus there's the issue of Obamacare being much harder to turn back once it's been in place for a period of time.  I don't honestly know what the best strategy is for the GOP-- every one I can think of has serious negatives.

The thing is that the last presidential election was essentially "Should we repeal Obamacare?" If so, vote in Romney. And Romney lost. So it's fair to say that the majority of the US wants to keep Obamacare. It's been made into a law - which required bi-partisan approval to get it through the House - and signed by the president. Even the Supreme Court has said, "Yes, this is a valid law."

There are far better things to spend our time on than repealing something that most people want.

[Rasputin]

actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today

i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford

[Ideologue]

If they had let Obamacare funding go through without a fight, they'd have pissed off a lot of their base and would have had their fingerprints on Obamacare (they voted to fund it!) later on when the ill-effects become even more pronounced.

Why are you just ignoring the fact that most people don't want Obamacare repealed?

See, that cuts both ways.  It's fair to say most people don't want Obamacare repealed, but it's just as accurate to say most people don't want Obamacare implemented as it was written.

Well, duh.

[lustindarkness]

actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today

i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford

Do you really think we will not spend even more after this?   

[Jacob]

i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford

As I understand it, only 50% of the public debt is held by foreign governments; the remaining 50% are held by other American gov't entities, pension funds, mutual funds, banks, insurance companies, various corporations, individuals, and the Federal Reserve.

Regarding the lifestyle, you should be able to afford it if you rolled back a few of the recent tax cuts and refrained from any long term war and occupation commitments in the next little while.

[Ideologue]

What's the lifestyle "we" have, Peter?

[grumbler]

actually i won; my government is not spending money it doesnt have today and i do not feel the loss of any service despite the media's hysteria this morning about my not being able to tour a federal park or get my passport renewed today

i hope this lasts a few months so that we can finally reevaluate what we spend our money on as we continue to borrow money from foreign governments to fund a lifestyle we cannot afford

Do you really think we will not spend even more after this? 

Yeah, we are going to give all of those Federal workers back pay for them sitting around during the shutdown, but we'll never get back the lost labor.  This isn't about responsible government, its about a minority throwing a hissy fit that even they have no idea how they will end, and no plan to actually gain anything from it.

Even for the most reactionary elements of the House Republicans, funding the  government is "damned if you do, and double-damned if you don't."

[OttoVonBismarck]

I find it interesting that your labor laws allow the government to just not pay its employees anymore when it suits current policy.

There's conflicting laws. The laws regulating how the employees get paid can't trump the laws that say the government cannot legally spend money that hasn't been appropriated.

It's akin to a company that has a legal obligation to pay its employees, but has gone bankrupt and physically cannot because they lack money or even net assets they can sell off to make payroll. The company is dissolved and a great many people are unhappy. The U.S. Government actually has money in the bank account, but legally it's akin to that bankrupt company (at least when we're talking about non-essential employees), in that it can no more spend that money than a bankrupt company can spend money it does not have.