US government shutdown?

[stang]

I know squat about this... Is there a thread already?

[Fusebox]

There's an ongoing US debt discussion thread, but I think this more than merits a new thread. I love how Canadians are so quick to condemn Americans for this shutdown, but not many even know what proroguing parliament means, or are aware that our own federal government has been shut down for several months now.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fusebox

There's an ongoing US debt discussion thread, but I think this more than merits a new thread. I love how Canadians are so quick to condemn Americans for this shutdown, but not many even know what proroguing parliament means, or are aware that our own federal government has been shut down for several months now.

You need to read more about this story.

What is happening in the US right now is totally different than proroguing parliament. Virtually all US public services that are funded by the federal government are closed. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been told to stay home without pay. This isn't congress taking an extended summer recess (the equivalent of proroguing parliament); this is a near-total shutdown of the American government.

[Fusebox]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You need to read more about this story.

What is happening in the US right now is totally different than proroguing parliament. Virtually all US public services that are funded by the federal government are closed. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been told to stay home without pay. This isn't congress taking an extended summer recess (the equivalent of proroguing parliament); this is a near-total shutdown of the American government.

Oh, trust me, I know. I spend hours each day reading US newspapers and listening to political podcasts. I was just pointing out how amusing I find it when Canadians sneer at the current government gridlock in the United States when in reality, our government can be temporarily adjourned whenever the Prime Minister decides, regardless of whether he has a majority or not.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fusebox

Oh, trust me, I know. I spend hours each day reading US newspapers and listening to political podcasts. I was just pointing out how amusing I find it when Canadians sneer at the current government gridlock in the United States when in reality, our government can be temporarily adjourned whenever the Prime Minister decides, regardless of whether he has a majority or not.

And yet you're still missing the obvious.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fusebox

Oh, trust me, I know. I spend hours each day reading US newspapers and listening to political podcasts. I was just pointing out how amusing I find it when Canadians sneer at the current government gridlock in the United States when in reality, our government can be temporarily adjourned whenever the Prime Minister decides, regardless of whether he has a majority or not.

There's a HUGE difference between proroguing parliament and halting virtually all functions normally performed by employees of the federal government. It's ridiculous to even compare the two.

Among other service disruptions, Americans cannot apply for a passport or visit a national park right now; the same is not true for Canadians because our government is still functioning even though parliament is prorogued.

[zamler]

Better check for a blown fuse maybe?

[stang]

Anyone with the quick get you up to speed version? How the hell does can that even happen? Can't Obama say " get back to work"

[Fusebox]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You need to read more about this story.

What is happening in the US right now is totally different than proroguing parliament. Virtually all US public services that are funded by the federal government are closed. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been told to stay home without pay. This isn't congress taking an extended summer recess (the equivalent of proroguing parliament); this is a near-total shutdown of the American government.

Clinton called Gingrich's bluff back in late 1995 and rode his success to a landslide electoral victory in November 1996. Obama is hoping to ride this shutdown to a mid term election win in Congress so he can implement his agenda in the last two years of his term, which would be very unusual - usually the President is a lame duck for the last two years of an extended term.

The Democrats received 59,626,252 votes total in Congressional races compared to only 58,212,650 for the Republicans. Yes, the Republicans won the house 234-201 but it is very disingenuous for them to argue that they have a mandate from the public to shut down the government in order to stop Obamacare from being implemented when the only reason they won more seats in the House is due to gerrymandering.

[Fusebox]

Originally Posted by stang

Anyone with the quick get you up to speed version? How the hell does can that even happen? Can't Obama say " get back to work"

There are three main branches to the US government - the executive branch (President) legislative (house of representatives and senate) and the judicial (courts). No law can be passed without approval from all three. The judicial branch cannot make new laws, only rule on the legality of existing and newly passed ones.

All money bills (ie. new taxation laws, and budgets, which is important here) MUST originate in the lower house of congress, which is the House of Representatives, or just plain "Congress", which is how it is frequently, though incorrectly, referred to in the press.

Once the House passes a budget, it goes to the upper house of Congress, or Senate for approval. After that, the executive branch (President) gets to have his say, and can veto anything that comes to this desk, which is very unusual these days. Only a 3/4 vote in the Senate can override his veto.

Now, here's the problem. The lower house is now controlled by the Republicans. They have legitimate concerns about the implementation of Obama's prized piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare". They are refusing to allow the government to be funded going forward without attaching a piece of legislation to the budget that delays the implementation of Obamacare.

Now, the current President is a Democrat, so he's not too happy about these uppity peons down in Congress messing up his plans. His party control the Senate, so he doesn't even need to worry about vetoing any budget bill - it simply won't even get that far. Any bill coming out of the lower house that includes a delay in Obamacare is dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Obama will win this in the short term by refusing to budge. The Republicans in the House will be forced to fold under public pressure once people start realising just how inconvenient this is making their every day lives. Long term, how it plays out in next year's midterm elections really is anyone's guess. Obama will be out the door three years from now anyway so at least nobody can accuse him of not standing strong on the key issue he promised to address if elected.

[Vulcan]

Now, the current President is a Democrat, so he's not too happy about these uppity peons down in Congress messing up his plans.

I was with you a quarter of the way until you posted this. It's not about Obama not getting his way it's about health care for every American. He's already compromised his plan to assuage the Republicans and the Health care companies, what more does he have to do? Screw the Republicans and the Koch brothers.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/koch_brothers_partner/

Gen Opp is just a symptom of our American dysfunction. It’s what you get when an activist Supreme Court strikes down limits on the political corruption that big money can anonymously buy; when ideologues and dunderheads from gerrymandered districts face no electoral accountability for their demagoguery; when fearful news media misleadingly frame the story as two political parties equivalently guilty of bad behavior. Welcome to plutocrat’s paradise.

[Daradon]

^^^ Love that part at the end of your quote about fearful media misframing the conflict (even though so many loud mouths cry liberal bias, one look at this situation and it's really conservatively biased). I am so fracking sick of the false equivalency that the usual suspects chirp about.

Sorry, it's only been one party that has gridlocked government. One party that has used more filibusters in one presidents ruling than ALL OF HISTORY COMBINED. One party that has said many times on record that it is their job to make the president unpopular or keep him to one term. One party that has forced default and debt celing crisis. One party more guilty of gerrymandering. One party whole expects to lead or rule despite not having the mandate.

One party is guilty of these things. The democrats have never held the country hostage like this.

Yes both parties are bad, petty and destructive at times. Yes the system is broken and both sides are at fault.

But for all the usual republican apologizers reading this, please just stop with ths false equivalency, because the republicans have taken it to a whole other level. It's not even comparable at this point.

Hopefully it blows up in their face like many analysts think it will. Hopefully enough of the public can see through the politics and really turf this party at all levels.

Course blind religious ideologues and dumb tea partiers will probably hang on for a while.

Not sure how anyone else could vote republican though. The apologists should really be ashamed.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Fusebox

The lower house is now controlled by the Republicans. They have legitimate concerns about the implementation of Obama's prized piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare".

Hah.

[Fusebox]

Oh, I'm a huge supporter of the Affordable Care Act and most certainly would be a Democrat myself were I to live in the United States.

Of course I believe that every American should have the right to affordable health care. We are very luck to live in such a great country as Canada. When I was nineteen, I had to have minor hernia surgery which would likely have bankrupted me if I had not been fortunate enough to live here and get the procedure done for nothing more than what we already pay in taxes.

Now, when I say that the Republicans have some legitimate concerns with the legistlation that is just coming into force now, I don't mean to argue that they're right. No piece of legislation is perfect and in my opinion, the good in this one far outweighs the bad. However, it is not lost on me that most labour unions, who are usually big supporters of Obama and Democrats in general, have raised huge concerns with some parts of the new law. Work hours being cut to 29.5 hours per week because the law requires employers who provide employment of thirty hours per week or more to provide health care insurance to their employees, that kind of thing. My father lived in Boston about a decade ago and saw all of these things happen there when they instituted Romneycare, which is what Obamacare is largely modeled after, on people at the state wide level.

[Slava]

^that kind of thing happens all over, regardless of this plan. In Canada we have plenty of employees who work just under fulltime so that benefits aren't paid. Its hardly a reason to shutdown government.

The so-called 'legitimate concerns' are a non-factor by now because this was already voted on! Now a segment of the republicans are just holding things up because of misguided ideology.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

It's not even the entire Republican Party that is behind this. It's the group of rebellious tea partiers driving this nonsense. It's as much Rep vs Rep as Dem vs Rep.

[19Yzerman19]

The problem, Fusebox, with how you've presented this is that you've skirted a key point: the budget has nothing to do with Obamacare. Passing a budget is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Obamacare has been passed, is being funded and has gone into effect, and the non-passing of a budget and consequent government shutdown does not affect it.

What the Republicans in Congress are doing is using the budget to hold the country hostage, their demand being that Obamacare effectively be undone after the fact. After it's already been put in place. It's the law. Congress is effectively saying, "undo this law, or we're not passing a budget". It's no different in principle than if they'd said "either you agree to change the speed limit on this expressway or we won't fund anything". It applies to every law, and it's basically legislative terrorism - forgive the sensationalist comparison, but the tactics really are analogous.

The other point is that it's really not all republicans, it's a group led by a Mr. Cruz of Texas. The Republican leadership basically thinks this is a potential disaster, and also pointless because it doesn't affect Obamacare and they don't believe the President will give in in any circumstance. I doubt he will, because all it will lead to is them doing this again with the debt ceiling, and then again with the next budget cycle, extracting further demands.

[GGG]

Can the president still use a line item veto to change a bill. I remember during the Bush presidency that this came up where Bush planned to Veto only parts of a bill rather than the entire thing.

Is this still permitted? If so couldnt the Senate pass the budget bill with the restrictions and then obama just vetos out the parts he doesn't like?

[psyang]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

The problem, Fusebox, with how you've presented this is that you've skirted a key point: the budget has nothing to do with Obamacare. Passing a budget is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Obamacare has been passed, is being funded and has gone into effect, and the non-passing of a budget and consequent government shutdown does not affect it.

What the Republicans in Congress are doing is using the budget to hold the country hostage, their demand being that Obamacare effectively be undone after the fact. After it's already been put in place. It's the law. Congress is effectively saying, "undo this law, or we're not passing a budget". It's no different in principle than if they'd said "either you agree to change the speed limit on this expressway or we won't fund anything". It applies to every law, and it's basically legislative terrorism - forgive the sensationalist comparison, but the tactics really are analogous.

The other point is that it's really not all republicans, it's a group led by a Mr. Cruz of Texas. The Republican leadership basically thinks this is a potential disaster, and also pointless because it doesn't affect Obamacare and they don't believe the President will give in in any circumstance. I doubt he will, because all it will lead to is them doing this again with the debt ceiling, and then again with the next budget cycle, extracting further demands.

Great post. This really hits the heart of the matter. Obamacare is a law. Withholding funding because you disagree with a law really is like legislative terrorism.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Oh Americans. How dumb art thou?

According to a new CNBC poll that surveyed two different groups, 46% of the group that was asked about "Obamacare" was opposed to the law, while 37% of the group asked about the "Affordable Care Act" was opposed to the law.

At the same time, more people support "Obamacare" (29%) than those who support ACA (22%.) In other words, having "Obama" in the name "raises the positives and the negatives," as CNBC put it.

It's also important to note that 30% didn't know what the ACA was, compared to 12% who weren't familiar with Obamacare, according to the poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...able-care-act/

Jimmy Kimmel also did something similar last night, asking people on the street if they like Obamacare and then if they liked the Affordable Care Act. Americans should never be allowed to complain about their politicians when they themselves are this misinformed.