Whether they understand it or not, Americans overwhelmingly oppose tying Obamacare to shutting down the government:
Interesting.
You got a cite for that?
And then Wikipedia lists all 18 individual episodes.
Your figure is more than twice that. Got a cite or some kind of explanation?
I was looking at this infographic, which lists 17 instances, and then mistyped 37 instead of 17. Which is a giant typo, I realize.
Ah, thanks. Rereading I see I might have come across as a bit stiff; not intended. Carry on.
I think your tone was appropriate. The idea that this is so common an occurrence that we hardly notice it is belied by the fact that we have not had one happen in nearly two decades.
1 - The REASON behind the shutdown is a stall tactic from Republicans to “terrorize” the legislature to not fund Obamacare. They want the funding taken out of Obamacare or else they’ll simply not pass spending laws, grinding the government to a halt.
2 - It’s not at a halt. It’s just a major inconvenience. Funding can’t come from taxes. It can come from other sources. The Post Office for instance is fully funded. Most government employees are working. These workers will likely not get back pay for the few days they’ll miss. Some contractors I know are being forced to take PTO or go without pay.
John Stewart has a scathing but fairly accurate description of what led up to this and why it’s rather petty: www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6uqg62xog0&sns=fb
This link has a pretty good and succinct description of the current effects of the shut down: www.wbir.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/30/questions-and-answers-about-the-government-shutdown/2894519/
This is irrelevant since majority polls isn’t how this country legislates, enforces, or revokes laws. The law’s been passed by congress and judicially reviewed by the supreme court. Even this shut down isn’t anything more than an embarrassing/petulant bump in the road as it pertains to Obamacare.
Tying congressional pay to congressional performance is a Really Bad Idea. Legislators that are poorly compensated are more susceptible to paid influence. Principled legislators who represent their districts well but aren’t rich are more likely to sit out an election than run for a job where they may not get paid enough to keep food on the table. Especially considering that ~95% of them are genuinely smart, hard-working, charismatic folks that could be making 2-10x as much in the private sector.
If I had to say either way I’d wager we are already getting a substandard Congress compared to what we could get if we paid competitive salaries (this goes for the staffs as well).
Of course, the same is true for every job, including the thousands of unpaid but excepted workers, and the thousands of furloughed and unpaid workers. I’m just saying we need Congress to get paid. They don’t deserve it, but we need it.
Ted Cruz has announced he’ll be donating his salary to charity during the shutdown.
Of course, he’s already a millionaire…
(I endorse Jon Stewart’s explanation, linked just above.)
This isn’t really true if you look back over the last couple of years when shutdown or default was threatened. The old reason to hold the government hostage was over deficit spending. The deficit has dropped dramatically, so Obamacare is just this week’s excuse. If we get past that excuse, there will be another made up reason the next time.
It seems everyone, here and IRL, are saying that the shutdown will end. Some say in days and others say in weeks. But, it does sound like “everyone” believes it will be temporary.
Even though we are now out of GQ, let me ask: exactly how does (or will) it end? Is compromise the only option?
Thanks!
At this point “compromise” is like offering the angry badger more and more of your leg with absolutely no certainty that you’ll even keep your pelvis.
Honest question: what’s to stop congress from using this same tactic to shut down other programs they don’t like… e.g. welfare, SS, medicare, medicaid? What about we just suspend abortions for a year and we will pass the a CR until the next thing we want in six weeks?
Far from it. Obama has already said that he’ll veto any bill, wholesale or piecemeal that doesn’t fund Obamacare and the Senate has said that it wouldn’t even make it that far because they won’t it either. In fact, the attempts to pass compromises so far hasn’t even been ratified in the Repubilcan-controlled House.
The conservative Republicans have been called on their bluff and it’s not compromise that will end this but outright capitulation of either side of whether or not to fund Obamacare.
is a good read with a good video attached of Harry Reid addressing the Senate.
Right. And considering the Administration has 2 elections, the SCOTUS and a passed bill on its side, I think the House will eventually be forced to cave. Especially if they take this past the debt-ceiling limit and the President continues to pay the country’s debts via executive order, and the SCOTUS refuses to stop it. Then this whole thing will appear to be a useless tantrum, with the “jobs jobs jobs” guys looking dumber and looking worse for 2014 every day for laying off 800,000 people for no reason.
I think there are a bunch of different reasons and everyone picked their own ranging from noble to misguided to retarded.
-
The continuing debate over the spiraling debt and raising the debt ceiling. Some Republicans have said enough is enough and we need responsible budgeting. The thing about threats is that they only work if the other side believes you will follow through so they did rather than giving in to raising the debt ceiling every time cf. Reid in 4a.
-
If Obamacare is unfunded every year, we can hamstring it until we get a Pub House, Senate and President to overturn it.
-
The government has a whole needs to be smaller. Shutting it down so people realize how bloated it is may lead to smaller bureaucracy.
4a) Reid finally making a stand and saying no more compromise and I’m willing to shut down the government to do so.
4b) The Pubs saying “Holy crap. I didn’t think he’d do it. Now what do we do?” “Hell if I know.”
- Pubs believing that this will translate into a win for their seat or a Pub 2016 presidency.
And that’s why it will be difficult to get out of this quagmire because so many people have different agendas with this shutdown.
A clean CR would pass the house right now. There are more than enough Republican defectors. The second Boehner moves one, it’s done.
It is equally likely that the second Boehner moves one, he will lose his job. The fact that the House would pass a clean CR if given half the chance seems to be lost in the debate much of the time.
Point of procedure: why is it up to Boehner? if there is a majority in the House in favour of passing a “clean” CR, how can he block it? couldn’t the majority over-rule a Speaker’s ruling?
Or is it that the Republicans don’t want to have an open breach in their ranks, so those in favour won’t vote with the Democrats to over-rule a Republican Speaker, following Reagan’s Law?
Copied from HuffPost:
In the House, the Speaker has control over the schedule. He determines what is brought up for a vote and what isn’t. Same thing in the Senate: the Majority Leader determines what bills get brought up.
In the House, there is a procedure called a discharge petition which allows a majority of the members to force a vote on a bill. However, this requires that the bill be pending in a committee for 30 days, and the actual vote can only occur on two days out of the month. If such a petition were signed today, the first opportunity for a vote would be in early November.
So, the only way to get a vote on the Senate bill in the near future is for Boehner to allow it.
Thank you for that response. So, it takes time, and it would take a group of Republicans in the House to be willing to force the issue over the objection of their party’s leader in the House?