Can someone explain to me how the Republicans are not terrorists, with whom the US government has declared unequivocally they won’t negotiate?
Think of it as hoping the fever breaks before the patient has a seizure.
They’re not terrorists. That’s an inflammatory metaphor designed to draw attention to how the Republicans have decided to negotiate by threatening things that all sides agree are good things (default and the continued operations of the 90% of government everyone agrees on, respectively). But passing a law that is bad for the country (or failing to pass one that is good) is not the same as *literal *terrorism, I hope everyone recognizes.
As to why they aren’t metaphorical terrorists, I think the most charitable thing you can say is that the debt limit stuff is all posturing but they have no intention of actually causing default (which Boehner and Cruz have basically admitted), and that the shutdown is something at least some of the caucus actually wants, so in that sense they are just negotiating with demands that are just unreasonable and stupid rather than “terroristic.” (And also that they do not bear 100% responsibility for the failure to negotiate a resolution prior to shutdown, though I think that’s just factually wrong given their refusal to go to conference.)
So they’re terrorists without the strength of their convictions? 
Here is the money quote of the month (so early!) from one of the House Republicans:
“We’re not going to be disrespected,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
…The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity…
Yes to both. If a minority Democrat submits the petition, then Republicans would have to challenge the Speaker’s agenda-setting power directly.
This is a very good piece from August about the possible use of the discharge petition to force immigration reform.
There is no doubt that more Republicans would vote for a clean CR that the Speaker moved to the floor than would vote for a discharge petition. I struggle to imagine a world where they would not be stripped of their committees in retribution by any Republican, Boehner or not, who held the Speakership subsequently.
The Republicans are terrorists? That actually explains a lot about American politics… 
The part I find most difficult to understand from this side of the pond is that an employer can simply stop paying their employees, and even worse: Expect some of them to work keep working even though the employer has broken their part of the contract. I know that people get back pay later (everybody? or just those who had to keep working?), but suddenly losing your income for a while can be pretty expensive.
Why don’t those who lose their pay sue the government for breach of contract or something? Employees have a right to get paid, don’t they?
Generally speaking, a contract with the government is subject to funding decisions of the government. The general idea is that the Executive Branch cannot commit the whole of government to paying someone under a contract if the Legislative Branch doesn’t want money spent on that thing. Otherwise, the Executive Branch could just go out an sign contracts for workers, computers, aircraft carriers, yachts, and superconducting supercolliders, putting the government on the hook for the money even if Congress refuses appropriations for those things.
It might be much sooner than that.
Nice little turn of the screw there.
Thanks, Ravenman. It makes sense that the Executive Branch can’t enter into new contracts in this situation, but it does seem weird that they can’t honor contracts they have entered already.
They can’t spend money they don’t have. Not that much different from other folks. If the bank account’s empty and the bank’s frozen your credit cards, you can’t pay your employees.
First, I agree the Republicans are at fault.
However, the polling is looking substantially better than it did the last time. And Obama’s popularity is taking a hit as well, because the public rightly sees him as a partisan figure lacking a single iota of leadership ability.
You’re getting an awful lot of flavor text from a poll there.
That was my spin. Did you like it?
It tasted like you had been carrying it around in your pocket all day.
But members of Congress get their wages, don’t they? So there’s some money that can be spent. And I assume that if the military needs more fuel for their planes, or toilet paper, for that matter, they can pay for that?
Well, if that happens in Norway, the government pays your employees. To me that’s one of the most fundamental jobs of government: To protect people against being screwed to badly by more powerful groups.
I get that your system works this way, and that it’s hard to change. It just seems bizarre that a government acts so un-government-like.
In order for a government to perform that role, it has to manage its finances wisely. Norway does. Most countries do not.
Oh, there’s money in the federal coffers. It’s a question of having legal authority to spend it. The Constitution guarantees that the members of the Congress get paid. And Congress has passed interim legislation to ensure that the military will get paid during this period. It has not passed interim legislation for non-essential services.
Well, it’s not my system. I also live under a parliamentary system, and like Norway, we don’t have government shut-downs like this.