The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[Jacob]

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?"

You mean with conditions as they are now? No.

[Agelastus]

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?

Somebody posted in the thread earlier that the Hastert rule hasn't been invoked by anybody, I believe.

Which I then had to look up to find out what "rule" was being referred to; at which point I discovered that Boehner seems to have broken this so-called "Hastert rule" more times than his immediate predecessors put together. So I don't think a rule of dubious procedural merit is holding him back from ignoring the minority of his party and making a deal. I'm not 100% certain what is, though.

[merithyn]

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?"

Yes. When Congress and the President - whomever they may be - stops Obamacare from being a law.

Until then? No.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

Shoo.  Let the grown ups talk.

[Malthus]

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?"

The Republicans hope there is.

But realistically, no.

[Jacob]

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

As DGuller says:

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.

Because:

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

[Viking]

ok, to get a clarification, is the technical obstacle the failure of a house resolution or is it the unwillingness of the speaker to put such a resolution to a vote?

[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.

Shoo.  Let the grown ups talk.

When it comes to this subject, it would be a very boring conversation, since they would all hold one view.

[merithyn]

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.

Shoo.  Let the grown ups talk.

I don't think DG is the one acting childish here.

[Jacob]

ok, to get a clarification, is the technical obstacle the failure of a house resolution or is it the unwillingness of the speaker to put such a resolution to a vote?

As I understand it, Boehner could put a house resolution to a vote this moment and it would pass.

[Admiral Yi]

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

As DGuller says:

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.

Because:

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

I am unaware of anything in either the Constitution or Congress' internal rules that states an existing program must be funded.

If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[merithyn]

I am unaware of anything in either the Constitution or Congress' internal rules that states an existing program must be funded.

If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So you're okay with our government going this route in future? For anything?

[Jacob]

I am unaware of anything in either the Constitution or Congress' internal rules that states an existing program must be funded.

If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Is your argument that the Republicans actions are legal according to the Constitution and follow Congress' internal rules? Because if you are, you won't get anyone disagreeing with you.

Or are you arguing that the Republicans are not undermining the ability of the American government to function if they get their way? Because if you are, we are in disagreement.

I'll also note that you initially questioned the reasoning behind the position that the Republicans are acting irresponsible by holding the government and US economy hostage, and thus they cannot be given in to; you were not asking about the legality.

[Berkut]

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.

Indeed. And if you refuse such an offer, then clearly you are not someone who cares about peace.

[Admiral Yi]

So you're okay with our government going this route in future? For anything?

No I'm not.  I prefer the government stay open.  I would like to see Obamacare funded.*  The Republicans have launched a suicidal gambit that I expect to bit them in the ass.

All that being said, I still think parks being open is better than parks being closed.

*I would prefer they got rid of the voodoo bullshit that "funded" half of Obamacare originally and replaced it with real money.