The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[Admiral Yi]

Obamacare is an existing program. It's been law for quite some time.

And?

As long as parks are closed it gets funded?

[merithyn]

I heard an interesting thing on NPR this morning. A commentator was talking about the shut-down, and the Republicans major concern with Obamacare. She said, "The Republicans are concerned that once it's implemented, it will be impossible to get rid of. It will be even worse if Obamacare succeeds."

I think it's that last bit that bothers me the most. If Obamacare succeeds - if it offers affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans - it will be harder to get rid of.

Is this really how Republicans think? Is it seriously more important to take this away than to see people finally in a position to have affordable healthcare?

[merithyn]

Obamacare is an existing program. It's been law for quite some time.

And?

As long as parks are closed it gets funded?

As long as parks are closed, Republicans have to deal with the fact that it's a sitting law that requires funding.

[The Brain]

I heard an interesting thing on NPR this morning. A commentator was talking about the shut-down, and the Republicans major concern with Obamacare. She said, "The Republicans are concerned that once it's implemented, it will be impossible to get rid of. It will be even worse if Obamacare succeeds."

I think it's that last bit that bothers me the most. If Obamacare succeeds - if it offers affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans - it will be harder to get rid of.

Is this really how Republicans think? Is it seriously more important to take this away than to see people finally in a position to have affordable healthcare?

If you disagree with the policies of the other side you are a bad person?

[merithyn]

If you disagree with the policies of the other side you are a bad person?

When that policy supplies a vital necessity to the majority of the population? Yes, I'd say so.

[Jacob]

Not sure I see the connection between keeping parks closed and the principle of funding existing programs.

It's been spelled out for you quite clearly, I think... I'm not sure what you're not getting?

1. Government programs exist; Obamacare is one, maintaining federal parks is another one.
2. The traditional way for getting rid of an unpopular government program is to pass a bill through both houses and have the president sign off on it.
3. If it is controversial, some horse trading is involved.

The new system proposed by the Teaparty Republicans is that as long as anyone controls any one of the Presidency, the Senate, or Congress they should have a line item veto over existing government programs by passing piecemeal individual bills funding only parts they approve of.

It essentially destroys the American system of governance as a functional entity.

Which, perhaps, is the goal?

[The Brain]

If you disagree with the policies of the other side you are a bad person?

When that policy supplies a vital necessity to the majority of the population? Yes, I'd say so.

Ah. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.

[Jacob]

Ah. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.

Your schtick became tired back in 2005.

[Admiral Yi]

As long as parks are closed, Republicans have to deal with the fact that it's a sitting law that requires funding.

Is there any concievable point at which the narrative switches from "the Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage to kill Obamacare" to "the Democrats are holding the rest of the government hostage to keep Obamacare?"

[Agelastus]

This republican offer is the equivalent of Austria-Hungary issuing the ultimatum to Serbia but offering a non-aggression pact with Russia.  Why shouldn't Imperial Russia agree to at least a partial peace deal?  They at least get partial pace.

I'm not sure that's a very good analogy, Grumbler, since Imperial Russia should have hung Serbia and the thugs running it at the time out to dry (and almost certainly would have done if Austria-Hungary hadn't delayed their ultimatum for several weeks since it hadn't been that many years since Serbian officers had butchered - literally - their king and his family to place a rival dynast on the throne, something neither Austria-Hungary nor Russia liked or wanted to encourage.) Given what happened during and after WWI it's difficult to see how Imperial Russia could have been worse off had they said yes in the case you postulate above.

I do agree with you though, that allowing funding of some items by various special bills while the main budget is deadlocked sets a terrible precedent.

Looking at the history of US government shutdowns (and particularly those of the Reagan years when they seem to have been a fairly regular event) when did the art of compromise die in Congress? Under Clinton? George W. Bush?

[The Brain]

Ah. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.

Your schtick became tired back in 2005.

Which one?

[grumbler]

Ah. Good thing that Democrats-who-think-people-who-disagree-with-them-are-Evil didn't get tired years ago.

Your schtick became tired back in 2005.

I think you are taking him way too seriously.  At his most intense, The Brain is whimsical.  Usually, he isn't even that serious.

[Viking]

Am I correct in understanding that the reason for the shutdown is, in part, due to Boehner using the Hastert rule to prevent a resolution going to the floor for a vote?

[Admiral Yi]

It's been spelled out for you quite clearly, I think... I'm not sure what you're not getting?

Maybe because nowhere in your quite clear spelling out do you explain how opening or closing parks affects anything.

1. Government programs exist; Obamacare is one, maintaining federal parks is another one.
2. The traditional way for getting rid of an unpopular government program is to pass a bill through both houses and have the president sign off on it.
3. If it is controversial, some horse trading is involved.

The new system proposed by the Teaparty Republicans is that as long as anyone controls any one of the Presidency, the Senate, or Congress they should have a line item veto over existing government programs by passing piecemeal individual bills funding only parts they approve of.

It essentially destroys the American system of governance as a functional entity.

Which, perhaps, is the goal?

[DGuller]

Yi, the question was asked and answered, repeatedly.  You don't get to pick and choose which laws and obligation you don't mind funding.  You're getting really close to the Raz territory now.