To those who are affected by the gov't shutdown...

[Arcadia]

When did we stop caring so completely about real people.

I can only answer for my family. Hubby is now job hunting. If he does not get a job in time, we have to hope California's unemployment office does not foul up on unemployment checks. The unemployment office had a computer glitch recently causing a backlog.

When I worked for corporate america, retrenchment happened every close of fiscal quarter. People were given one month notice. Some moved back to their parents home while job hunting or parents loan them money for mortgage. My ex-boss was out of job for 9 months and he was considered lucky. Some engineers became taxi drivers to feed their family.

Since the early 90s, I had relatives, friends and neighbors losing their jobs. Most of us are just dumping whatever spare cash into emergency funds. My brother and BIL had been retrenched many times.

Our emotional bucket is already in deficit.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

I, for one, do not have any comfort zone whatsoever with demanding services at the expense of real families and some of them will endure terrible hardship if this continues for more than a couple of weeks. I already know one police officer whose job is funded by federal grant that will not be able to make his house payment next week. He's used his emergency funds in the past for the other mini-shutdowns and furloughs. As it is, he has worked for months getting paid for only four shifts of work weekly, but required to work five shifts. So he's had the pay cut, now he has no pay, but he's still on the roads protecting and serving. I cannot imagine how any American should think this is okay. When did we become so cold/hard-hearted as a nation that we just brazenly believe everyone else was put on planet earth to serve us without compensation. When did we stop caring so completely about real people.

 

I don't believe anyone is saying this.   People are frustrated - private and public workers alike.  Sometimes that frustration comes out at groups of "other" people.  No one wants babies to go hungry, children to go without their medical care, firefighters and police to work without pay.   

 

[brehon]

I don't think that having a public servant worker v. private worker debate is particularly helpful. Each has their unique advantages, disadvantages, and stressors. The gov't shutdown affects *everyone* in differing ways.

 

I am a public worker - I work for a third service EMS agency (it is a county run EMS system). And, yes, I can be forced to work for no pay. However, there are also other non-governmental workers who could also be forced to work for no pay if they are deemed essential. My system just hired 14 new line paramedics and is in the process of hiring/promoting (depending on the position) 4 administrative/line people. All of these positions are funded using a big state grant which is partially dependant on federal funds. You see the issue here?

 

Anyway, my thought is that we should keep the pressure on those who deserve it, namely our elected representatives, instead of on each other.

 

Oh, FM, just as an aside my system is a nationally recognized system which will be hiring again in January (more than likely). And, except for the above mentioned grant, the bulk of our funding comes from county taxes. And there is a continually growing IT sector in this area. No state income tax (though property taxes can be high depending on location), low COL. Ya know, just throwin' it out there.

[Arcadia]

A nice news story of a glacial park ranger:  "Nation's oldest park ranger, 93, considers future"

[Lisbeth]

This is not the same at all. DD has at times clocked out, but still finished a report or cleaned a rig. But, she got paid for her shift. If she were working in our rural county today, she would work four, twelve hour shifts per week for NO PAY.

 

My husband has put in many a comp time hour, but he has ALWAYS received his negotiated salary or hourly wage for the prescribed shift. He has NEVER, not once, ever had a private employer fail to issue his paycheck. If that happens, the employer is in trouble HUGELY with the state and the penalties are not kind.

 

We, the employer called the United States of America, made of up voters and taxpayers who expect for police to protect us, EMS to run the roads saving our lives, firefighters to protect our communities, military personnel to secure us, ......expect them to work for NOTHING? This is acceptable??? You can say all you want about back pay, but you can't go to the grocery store and promise your back-pay to the manager and be allowed to take out food, nor can you give an IOU to the electrical company, or the bank. One missed payment, just one, and our local banks will instantly begin repossession. It's legal for them to do so, and they have no compassion.

 

I, for one, do not have any comfort zone whatsoever with demanding services at the expense of real families and some of them will endure terrible hardship if this continues for more than a couple of weeks. I already know one police officer whose job is funded by federal grant that will not be able to make his house payment next week. He's used his emergency funds in the past for the other mini-shutdowns and furloughs. As it is, he has worked for months getting paid for only four shifts of work weekly, but required to work five shifts. So he's had the pay cut, now he has no pay, but he's still on the roads protecting and serving. I cannot imagine how any American should think this is okay. When did we become so cold/hard-hearted as a nation that we just brazenly believe everyone else was put on planet earth to serve us without compensation. When did we stop caring so completely about real people.

I don't have a comfort zone with a big % of Americans getting huge premium increases ... Often way outside what they can afford ..to pay for other people's insurance (or food stamps or section 8... or... All the ways that taxpayers are asked to go ti work to carry their neighbors .. But, that is also reality.

[redsquirrel]

Another morning wake up and check of the news.  Another disappointment - esp upon finding out one group (I think it was the House, but I was making breakfast so could be incorrect) did pass a provision to open the NIH, National Parks, and something else (forgot what), then the other group said, "no deal."

 

I dislike both groups equally for getting us into this mess.  I REALLY dislike the group not willing to compromise to keep really important things (like the NIH) open.

 

I've been disillusioned with politics for several years now only surfacing to vote in each election (primaries too).  Now I'm finding myself with a new feeling... hate.  It's not a good feeling... (and we actually aren't affected in any sort of major way).  I'd love to sweep them all out of office and turn over the matter (this matter, not all matters) to a coin toss.  Group A's plan gets Heads.  Group B's plan gets Tails.  Either way, we settle the deal and get things running again.

 

But I'll offer more :grouphug: (and new "Likes") for those affected.

 

I really don't have high hopes for gov't funding later this month.

 

I truly understand your frustration. I have family out of work and not getting paid right now. I have a few friends who work for the FDA who are not working and not getting paid.

 

But what concessions are to be made? This is because one small group, a subset, is upset that a law was passed three years ago.

This law:

Was passed by both congress and the senate (you may or may not be happy about it but it passed)

Was signed by the president (Again, you may or may not be happy about it, but that happened as well)

Was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional (Again, you may or may not agree, but that did happen)

 

So, all three branches of our government had their say. There were checks and balances.

 

Then we had an election in which each candidate had a firmly stated position on the law. One candidate said he would uphold the law, another said that the first thing he would do after being sworn in was overturn the law. The candidate who campaigned on overturning the law lost both the popular vote and electoral vote. 51.1% to 47.2% is a clear majority and a clear win. So, the population that votes had their say both through their elected officials and an election.

 

Now a group of elected officials who come from very safe districts are holding up the budget to force the government to overturn the law or delay the implementation. Only, their tactic makes no sense because the law has gone into effect and shutting the government down wont stop the law from taking effect. This never had to happen. It was never going to get the desired outcome and that was known from the beginning.

 

So, what is to compromise on? I agree completely that it would be better to have funding for things like sick children, but I can also see that by giving in on some demands that make the whole mess look a teensy bit better it will only make it harder to get a budget approved at all.  How does giving in to meaningless tactics do the country any good? We will still have no budget in a week.

 

I know lots of people are saying they aren't going to vote for their rep next time around no matter the party affiliation. But, I also wonder how many people live in districts where their rep, from either party, runs unopposed. A solution here isn't term limits. First of all, elections are term limits, and the districts are so gerrymandered by both sides that you can term limit one person out only to have them replaced by a carbon copy. That has encouraged seats to be safer and safer and it causes ideologues from both sides to be elected again and again. It isn't the body in the seat that is the issue, it is the safety of the seat. Don't change the person (Well, go ahead if you like, lol) but it is non-partisan voting districts that will bring about change. People will vote when they feel like their vote matters. If they see the same people locally, year after year with no hope of change why should they vote.

 

I live in a very 'safe' district. Now, I happen to like my elected officials, but I admit that I have skipped an off year election or two because it just doesn't matter. They usually run unopposed. If there is a sacrificial candidate from the other side they just get trounced.

 

[Arcadia]

But, I also wonder how many people live in districts where their rep, from either party, runs unopposed. A solution here isn't term limits. First of all, elections are term limits, and the districts are so gerrymandered by both sides that you can term limit one person out only to have them replaced by a carbon copy. That has encouraged seats to be safer and safer and it causes ideologues from both sides to be elected again and again. It isn't the body in the seat that is the issue, it is the safety of the seat. Don't change the person (Well, go ahead if you like, lol) but it is non-partisan voting districts that will bring about change. People will vote when they feel like their vote matters. If they see the same people locally, year after year with no hope of change why should they vote.

:iagree:

This happens at both state govt. and federal level.

 

WSJ and NY Times are reporting a lockdown due to gunfire at Capitol Hill which started at 2:30pm and is now lifted.

BBC link for the lockdown

[creekland]

I heard one explanation of why piecemeal funding really doesn't work.  The example given in an NPR story was that if the VA was fully funded, they couldn't process certain types of claims without input from the Social Security Administration which wouldn't be funded. 

 

I fear that our elected officials fail to understand the complexity of government itself. 

They have already gone piecemeal by separating "essential" and "non-essential" and detailing who will get paid and who won't.  Adjusting that will only make things better IMO.

 

Our elected officials OFTEN fail to understand the complexity of many aspects of life - including gov't itself IMO. 

 

I truly understand your frustration. I have family out of work and not getting paid right now. I have a few friends who work for the FDA who are not working and not getting paid.

 

But what concessions are to be made? This is because one small group, a subset, is upset that a law was passed three years ago.

This law:

Was passed by both congress and the senate (you may or may not be happy about it but it passed)

Was signed by the president (Again, you may or may not be happy about it, but that happened as well)

Was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional (Again, you may or may not agree, but that did happen)

 

So, all three branches of our government had their say. There were checks and balances.

 

Then we had an election in which each candidate had a firmly stated position on the law. One candidate said he would uphold the law, another said that the first thing he would do after being sworn in was overturn the law. The candidate who campaigned on overturning the law lost both the popular vote and electoral vote. 51.1% to 47.2% is a clear majority and a clear win. So, the population that votes had their say both through their elected officials and an election.

 

I guess I don't care who would win the coin toss because I don't care which way it all goes.  AFA doesn't affect us.

 

I'll admit I was annoyed with the party that caused it to start with (I don't like connecting non-connected issues), but now I'm equally annoyed by the party that won't change what is obviously "essential" just to suit their political purposes.  Two wrongs do not make something right.  If I were a relative of someone who had an appt with the NIH, I'd be absolutely livid.  Politicians have no right to be playing with those folk's lives just to make a point - no matter what that point is. 

[redsquirrel]

They have already gone piecemeal by separating "essential" and "non-essential" and detailing who will get paid and who won't.  Adjusting that will only make things better IMO.

 

Our elected officials OFTEN fail to understand the complexity of many aspects of life - including gov't itself IMO. 

 

I guess I don't care who would win the coin toss because I don't care which way it all goes.  AFA doesn't affect us.

 

I'll admit I was annoyed with the party that caused it to start with (I don't like connecting non-connected issues), but now I'm equally annoyed by the party that won't change what is obviously "essential" just to suit their political purposes.  Two wrongs do not make something right.  If I were a relative of someone who had an appt with the NIH, I'd be absolutely livid.  Politicians have no right to be playing with those folk's lives just to make a point - no matter what that point is. 

 

The 'coin toss' as you put it, was already decided. What we have here is one group deciding trying to force a retoss of the coin by overturning a Parcheesi game. They don't have anything to do with one another. What happens next month when it is time to raise the debt ceiling? Force a default of the US government? After all if they managed to get the ACA delayed, why not go for broke, literally and just close it down again? When does it stop? That will close down a whole lot more than the NIH for a much longer time. The results will be much, much worse.

 

And the ACA  does affect you if you are a US citizen, even if you haven't educated yourself as to the ways it will.

 

 

[SweetMissMagnolia]

thanks...tomorrow will be our first furlough day.....hoping it doesn't last long but it scares the daylights out of me!

[creekland]

 

And the ACA  does affect you if you are a US citizen, even if you haven't educated yourself as to the ways it will.

Thanks for the rude comment.  It made my morning...

 

And no, ACA does not affect us personally.  We are part of a health sharing organization and are legally exempt from it - perhaps you weren't aware those existed?  ;)

 

It affects the US, and I suppose technically will affect us as it affects our fellow citizens, but, that's stretching things a bit.  Our everyday healthcare and costs are not changing at all.

 

And as for the coin toss... that's to deal with today's issue, not yesterday's.  I honestly DO NOT CARE which side wins.  You might.  Others might.  I've no issue with your (collective) beliefs.  You're entitled to them.

 

FWIW, I believe healthcare is a right and should be available to all.  I'm not convinced ACA is the right way to have done it, but I've no problem with trying it since that's what's out there.  I'll rejoice with those it helps and sympathize with those who are worse off - but that's not really the issue with this thread - except for the cost.  Should it be delayed a year or started now?  Is it affordable now or will it be more affordable in a year?  I'll admit to having no idea.  What IS happening now is people are missing important doctor appts that are IMMEDIATELY life changing, working for no pay (or perhaps back pay), not working (and not getting pay), and having their lives disrupted needlessly, etc.  That could be ended with a coin toss if they are at such an impasse that they couldn't figure something out otherwise.  Then fire them for not being able to do their jobs in a timely manner.  At the very least they shouldn't be getting paid (nor back pay).  I also like the idea of making them do their arguing at the South Pole - without the dome.

 

If the coin toss can't happen, AT LEAST get essential things right - fixing it if need be.  Appts with NIH are essential (among some other things).

 

I think the idiots in power (that would be both parties) probably will let the US default at this point.  They are so concerned with their politics that they don't care about the people.

[Laura Corin]

Great stuff!

 

We, of course, have Senator Charles Sumner being beaten with a cane by Congressman Preston Brooks, but no YouTube video on that one (I think).

 

Bill

 

And unfortunately, Michael Heseltine wielding the mace in parliament predates parliamentary TV.

 

L

[FaithManor]

And unfortunately, Michael Heseltine wielding the mace in parliament predates parliamentary TV.

 

L

Now that would make for great t.v.! LOL

[redsquirrel]

Thanks for the rude comment.  It made my morning...

 

And no, ACA does not affect us personally.  We are part of a health sharing organization and are legally exempt from it - perhaps you weren't aware those existed?  ;)

 

It affects the US, and I suppose technically will affect us as it affects our fellow citizens, but, that's stretching things a bit.  Our everyday healthcare and costs are not changing at all.

 

And as for the coin toss... that's to deal with today's issue, not yesterday's.  I honestly DO NOT CARE which side wins.  You might.  Others might.  I've no issue with your (collective) beliefs.  You're entitled to them.

 

FWIW, I believe healthcare is a right and should be available to all.  I'm not convinced ACA is the right way to have done it, but I've no problem with trying it since that's what's out there.  I'll rejoice with those it helps and sympathize with those who are worse off - but that's not really the issue with this thread - except for the cost.  Should it be delayed a year or started now?  Is it affordable now or will it be more affordable in a year?  I'll admit to having no idea.  What IS happening now is people are missing important doctor appts that are IMMEDIATELY life changing, working for no pay (or perhaps back pay), not working (and not getting pay), and having their lives disrupted needlessly, etc.  That could be ended with a coin toss if they are at such an impasse that they couldn't figure something out otherwise.  Then fire them for not being able to do their jobs in a timely manner.  At the very least they shouldn't be getting paid (nor back pay).  I also like the idea of making them do their arguing at the South Pole - without the dome.

 

If the coin toss can't happen, AT LEAST get essential things right - fixing it if need be.  Appts with NIH are essential (among some other things).

 

I think the idiots in power (that would be both parties) probably will let the US default at this point.  They are so concerned with their politics that they don't care about the people.

 

Yeah, that was pretty jerky of me, wasn't it? I am sorry and I apologize.

 

I don't see the logic of what you are saying and that is prob what is sticking in my craw (Is that a think? a craw?)

 

You say you are assigning blame to all parties equally and believe that there is no stand on principle on either side. FTR, I do believe there is a stand on principle on both sides, but that doesn't really matter at this moment.

 

The point you keep coming back to is holding both sides equally responsible and you specifically mention it is due to the NIH issue. However, in your next breath you say you are fine with the ACA being delayed at least a year. What is that but denying access to affordable health care to millions of people who have never had it before?

 

I do agree with your anger about the denying of services to people who need them. Again, my family is directly effected by this. My SIL is out of work and my brother will be out of work if the default happens. My brother is considered a contract worker and the contracts (at least his) are being honoured. Why? My brother doesn't get it either.

 

But, right now some people are holding the budget process hostage in order to deny millions of people health care.  And it is ludicrous that now we, as a government, are being asked to choose between who gets what. I resent that the choice is even having to be made. 

 

But, if you don't think that anyone is acting on principle of any kind, then I guess it would be useless to examine motive or intent and assign value to the results.

 

So, anyway, that is the part that doesn't make sense to me, but I can imagine it doesn't really matter to you one way or the other. It isn't your job to have your opinions make sense to me or anyone else.

 

 

[Murphy101]

I don't believe anyone is saying this.   People are frustrated - private and public workers alike.  Sometimes that frustration comes out at groups of "other" people.  No one wants babies to go hungry, children to go without their medical care, firefighters and police to work without pay.

 

I'm so completely fed up, I'm okay with them walking off the job and think it should be illegal to force them to work without pay.

 

Does that mean I don't want to be able to call 911 and get a cop fast? Nope.

Does that mean I don't appreciate the hardship they go through either way? Nope.

 

It means our country is terribly polarized and it will get worse before it gets better. And political change is a terribly uncomfortable and uncertain thing.

 

I would like to see a link to what exactly the republicans were asking for and why the dems could not compromise, even meet them, on it.

 

From what I have found the reps:

Wanted the same delay that Obama has already given to other segments of the population

And

To repeal the medical device tax

 

Then they wanted to still give the individual mandate the same delay already given to other groups

And eliminate fed contributions to alternative health plans for congress and their aides

 

Yet I keep hearing how the rep wanted to gut and defund the ACA. Those measures hardly do such an extreme thing.

[redsquirrel]

I have said that one group says it wants to delay the ACA for now, but what happens next? We delay for a year to get a budget. Then what happens when the debt ceiling needs to be raised in a few weeks? Do they then get to threaten to default if the ACA isn't delayed for 5 years? repeal it altogether? When does it stop? Getting rid of the ACA is the stated goal of the leaders of a small cadre of legislators.

 

Getting rid of the tax on medical devices was part of making sure that the bill isn't adding money to the budget. Wasn't that the worry? That the ACA would cost us money?  Well that is one of the ways it gets paid for. Which do they want instead? The answer is they don't want it at all, but they made a demand (that it not cost anything) and that demand was addressed. Now that solution isn't accepted. I don't see that group providing their own solutions, just saying no to everything. How does that help solve the problem of access to health care? It is easy to tear things down, it is a lot harder to actually try to solve a problem.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/29/defying_senate_house_votes_to_delay_obamacare_120148.html

 

"The vote to delay implementation of the ACA was 231-192, with two Democrats, Jim Matheson of Utah and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, joining Republicans. Two GOP House members voted against: Chris Gibson and Richard Hanna, both of New York.

The tally to eliminate the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices was 248-174. Seventeen Democrats voted in favor."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/29/house-republicans-meet-to-plot-next-move-as-shutdown-deadline-nears/

 

"House Republicans voted early Sunday morning in favor of a temporary spending bill that includes a one-year delay for ObamaCare, a move that increases the chance of a government shutdown with Senate Democrats and the White House vowing to reject the measure ahead of a Monday night deadline."

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/28/227187803/house-gop-huddles-as-shutdown-countdown-begins

"The House voted early Sunday to tie government funding to a one-year delay in implementing Obamacare, sending the dispute back to the Senate, where it is certain to get a frosty reception. The House measure also repeals the Affordable Care Act's tax on medical devices."

 

And to be clear, I personally don't think this is really about the ACA. That is the excuse and the budget was the means. I think there is a small group of  legislators who see shutting down the government and throwing things into disarray as the goal. It isn't a negotiating tactic, it is the desired end result. Or, at the very least,to be less harsh in my assessment, there is no real exit strategy.

[redsquirrel]

I would like to see a link to what exactly the republicans were asking for and why the dems could not compromise, even meet them, on it.

 

From what I have found the reps:

Wanted the same delay that Obama has already given to other segments of the population

And

To repeal the medical device tax

 

Then they wanted to still give the individual mandate the same delay already given to other groups

And eliminate fed contributions to alternative health plans for congress and their aides

 

Yet I keep hearing how the rep wanted to gut and defund the ACA. Those measures hardly do such an extreme thing.

 

I've been thinking about this. There is more of my answer to what you have asked than what I posted above.

 

The problem isn't just what they have asked to have happen. They have taken the budget process hostage in an attempt to (supposedly) meet their legislative goals.  If they wanted the ACA delayed or the tax repealed then why didn't they do it through proper channels? That is their job, to pass bills. There is a process in place to do just that. The country went through it already, and, as I have said upthread, all three branches of government had their say. The legislative, the executive and the judiciary all weighed in. Then there was an election, also with very clear results.

 

 If they didn't like the results they got from the constitutional process then why were no bills introduced to make the specific changes they wanted? I mean aside from the 42 (?!) votes to overturn the bill. Why didn't they take the opportunity when they were going through that bit of theater to pass a more specific bill outlining what they wanted and then done the actual work to get it passed?

 

Instead of doing the work necessary, they have taken the budget process, something that has nothing to do with the ACA,  and subverted it to their will. That is an extreme thing. That is as extreme as you can get.

 

And it isn't even like shutting down the government stopped the ACA from starting. It has started. It is happening. They knew that when they decided to shut the government down.

 

That is why there is no compromise. They have gone outside the legislative process in an attempt to force their will upon the rest of us. That is not what we do in this country. What will the next demand be?

 

Would you stand for this behaviour by someone you knew in your personal life? Would you be ok with it it if someone in your life didn't like something you were doing, and decided to withold your pay until you complied with their will. Would you let them do that to your family? Or would you try to find a way to stop them?

 

And, again, I don't really think this is about the ACA. Not when there are members of Congress saying things like "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this and I don't even know what that even is."

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-stands-firm-against-funding-bill-will-link-to-debt-ceiling-fight/article/2536750

 

Exactly.

 

[justamouse]

 

And, again, I don't really think this is about the ACA. Not when there are members of Congress saying things like "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this and I don't even know what that even is."

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-stands-firm-against-funding-bill-will-link-to-debt-ceiling-fight/article/2536750

 

Exactly.

 

 

So, then, what about the Park Rangers stating that they were told to make this shut down as hard on the citizens as they could?  My bold. Let's not pretend anyone has the moral highground, here. 

 

 

 

The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

 

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,†an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.â€

 

[snip]

 

Harry is at the breaking point, weary from exhausting his thesaurus for synonyms for “arsonist†and “terrorist†and “pillager.†Everyone could see the cracks in his exchange with Dana Bash, a reporter for CNN, who asked why, if he is concerned about children with cancer who are unable to enter clinical trials for new drugs because Mr. Obama shut down the National Institutes of Health, why stifle Republican attempts to grant a little relief? 

 

“If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?†the reporter asked.

 

“Why would we want to do that?†Mr. Reid snapped back. “I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless.â€

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Sounds like there was initial confusion at Mt Vernon because they share a parking lot with the National Park Service. By morning my time (I am several time zones from the east coast, so I don't know the timeline) Mt Vernon's website said that contrary to reports, they were open for business and that their parking lot was open (I looked it up because someone was telling me about it). Really, most of the rest of it is lacking in substance that is debatable. For one thing, part of it is pure word of mouth. Republicans could instantly grant relief to everyone by passing the Senate's clean version on the budget. Refusing to pass a clean budget is a failure to compromise. It doesn't show a willingness to compromise. In fact, Rand Paul (edited for correction of brain glitch) was caught on tape discussing this compromise talking point with Mitch McConnell. You should hunt it down because the conversation contradicts their public claims.

 

I don't claim that anyone holds the "high ground" on this issue. I definitely think a lack of leadership has been exhibited on *all* sides. BUT, I have to agree with red that I don't like the idea of one house of Congress being able to (in essence) nullify a law by attaching a rider to the federal budget. I think that is a bad, bad idea. I don't approve of a small group of lawmakers holding our entire government hostage.

 

People have explained that government is too complicated to piecemeal the budget out. The military is going to work and getting paid, but lots of things are on hold because they rely on civilian employees too.

[redsquirrel]

 

So, then, what about the Park Rangers stating that they were told to make this shut down as hard on the citizens as they could?  My bold. Let's not pretend anyone has the moral highground, here. 

 

 

 

 

 

For that specific example you gave, I would need to know more before I can even understand it. Who told him what exactly? What does that mean? Who said it? I can't even find the name of the park ranger to verify the statement or figure out where he works, aside from Washington. I did google the quote to try to find out more information, but it all comes back to the original article you linked to. I can't find a named source for the quote or a context, or the name of the person who said such a thing to the park ranger or where it was said.

 

And, this isn't a 'moral high ground' issue. That isn't what is at risk here. The 'moral high ground' can take care of itself. The very idea of claiming or occupying a 'high ground' is part of the problem. This is about having respect for the legislative process. Either we have one and we follow it, or we don't. Sometimes you are happy with the outcome and sometimes you aren't, but we can't have a small faction changing the rules to suit their needs at the expense of the larger process. How can we as a law abiding country allow that to stand? How can we allow it to have any positive outcome for any faction? We will only have to go through this again and again every time any faction is unhappy with something or wants to take a philosophical stand against something.

 

And now it is Friday, and the country is no closer to this being over than when it started. It is looking more and more like this is an argument that one group is having with itself. Maybe when that gets sorted we can get the country running again.

 

[SadieMarie]

"But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream."

 

Here is a quote from Pruden (http://gawker.com/5406668/outrage+off-glenn-beck-vs-wesley-pruden) the author of the link about park rangers. He is a far right commentator/columnist and not exactly an unbiased reporter. It reminds me of the reports from Texas saying that prochoice protesters brought jars of feces to the state capital when Wendy Davis was doing her filibuster. It turned out to not be exactly true, or true at all, when the people doing the actual searching were interviewed.

But it still got play (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/gross-jars-of-urine-feces-and-paint-confiscated-as-texas-democrats-prepare-to-protest-texas-abortion-vote/).

[TXMomof4]

[quote name="redsquirrel" post="5234335" timestamp="1380935

 

And, this isn't a 'moral high ground' issue. That isn't what is at risk here. The 'moral high ground' can take care of itself. The very idea of claiming or occupying a 'high ground' is part of the problem. This is about having respect for the legislative process. Either we have one and we follow it, or we don't. Sometimes you are happy with the outcome and sometimes you aren't, but we can't have a small faction changing the rules to suit their needs at the expense of the larger process. How can we as a law abiding country allow that to stand? How can we allow it to have any positive outcome for any faction? We will only have to go through this again and again every time any faction is unhappy with something or wants to take a philosophical stand against something.

 

 

But hasn't the president already shown disrespect of the process by changing the law to allow businesses and unions a delay in implementing the law? Last I checked the law had to be changed by legislative process, not by presidential decree. The latest CR sent to the Senate didn't defund the ACA, but asked for a delay in the individual mandate. The exact same thing that's already been approved for businesses and unions. If the president can unilaterally do one, why can't Congress demand the same for the rest of the population? And why shouldn't Congress and their staff have to deal with the ACA? I don't understand why that is a sticking point for anyone in Washington.

[Mrs Mungo]

But hasn't the president already shown disrespect of the process by changing the law to allow businesses and unions a delay in implementing the law? Last I checked the law had to be changed by legislative process, not by presidential decree. The latest CR sent to the Senate didn't defund the ACA, but asked for a delay in the individual mandate. The exact same thing that's already been approved for businesses and unions. If the president can unilaterally do one, why can't Congress demand the same for the rest of the population? And why shouldn't Congress and their staff have to deal with the ACA? I don't understand why that is a sticking point for anyone in Washington.

 

There was a tremendous amount of negotiating done in order to pass the ACA bill into law. MOST of the ACA was based on the plan proposed *by the Republicans* because of the negotiations that went into passing it. Playing "take backs" and pretending you aren't being negotiated with, when that *already happened* is the problem. You can't negotiate a bill AFTER it has become law. Do you not see that such an act would degrade our whole legislative process? 

 

Congress and their staffs DO have to deal with the ACA. I've probably pointed this out a BAZILLION times on these threads.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8

 

[redsquirrel]

But hasn't the president already shown disrespect of the process by changing the law to allow businesses and unions a delay in implementing the law? Last I checked the law had to be changed by legislative process, not by presidential decree. The latest CR sent to the Senate didn't defund the ACA, but asked for a delay in the individual mandate. The exact same thing that's already been approved for businesses and unions. If the president can unilaterally do one, why can't Congress demand the same for the rest of the population? And why shouldn't Congress and their staff have to deal with the ACA? I don't understand why that is a sticking point for anyone in Washington.

 

There was one delay that was enacted by Congress, but that was a while ago. In July there was a separate delay announced, but it was not a change in the law or a change in the provisions of the law. The administration announced it would not be enacting any penalties against any large business that did not provide coverage to their employees through maybe 2015? 2014? The law still stands, only employers are getting more time to become compliant before they are held responsible. So how was the legislative process subverted? The law still stands unchanged.

 

Congress and its members are absolutely subject to the ACA.  Primary Source:

http://www.opm.gov/news/releases/2013/08/opm-issues-proposed-rule-which-details-how-members-of-congress-and-congressional-staff-will-be-insured-through-the-health-insurance-exchanges/

 

It is much like it has been for my family. We don't feel any change with the ACA. DH's employer continues making the same contribution to our insurance as before. We make a contribution and so does dh's employer. It is the same with Congress members, their families and staff.

 

"Welcome to Obamacare, Capitol Hill. The proposed rule also makes clear that congressional types will continue receiving their employer contributions to their health-care insurance — just as all those folks with existing employer-provided insurance programs do. In fact, that’s what this exercise has been about from the beginning: How to comply with the ACA’s directive that Congress enroll in Obamacare’s exchanges while preserving the employer contributions to which these hard workers are entitled."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/10/02/from-politico-to-hannity-the-trajectory-of-congresss-obamacare-exemption-myth/

 

And as for any union getting any waver, I can find lots and lots of discussion about unions NOT getting any waivers or delay, but nothing I find says they did. I did find this as way of explanation of where the idea came from:

 

"What they're referring to is the number of health insurance plans that the Department of Health and Human Services allowed to set lower annual caps -- temporarily -- on the total amount of medical bills they would pay for each subscriber. These include plans offered by 722 self-insured businesses, 417 groups of small employers joined in collective bargaining agreements, and 34 unions.

The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to phase out by 2014 the annual limits. The rule posed a challenge, however, to employers with "mini-med" plans, which charge extremely low premiums but offer truncated benefits and low annual caps. To keep workers from losing coverage altogether while their employers searched for an alternative, HHS granted waivers that let hundreds of mini-med plans keep  lower caps in place until 2014.

In short, the rule enabled employers and their workers to keep until next year the plans they had before the law was passed, even though they didn't meet the new minimum standards. The move may have saved some employers and unions money, but it also kept workers from losing their coverage abruptly."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obamacare-waivers-exemptions-hyperbole-20131002,0,6344095.story

 

The provisions of the law allow the dept of HHS to set those caps. That is within their jurisdiction and given to them in the law. Again, no legislation was subverted or changed.

 

 

[TXMomof4]

There was a tremendous amount of negotiating done in order to pass the ACA bill into law. MOST of the ACA was based on the plan proposed *by the Republicans* because of the negotiations that went into passing it. Playing "take backs" and pretending you aren't being negotiated with, when that *already happened* is the problem. You can't negotiate a bill AFTER it has become law. Do you not see that such an act would degrade our whole legislative process?

 

Congress and their staffs DO have to deal with the ACA. I've probably pointed this out a BAZILLION times on these threads.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

So the president can change the requirements of the law but Congress can't discuss the exact same thing for individuals? How does it *not* undermine the law to have it selectively applied?

[Mrs Mungo]

So the president can change the requirements of the law but Congress can't discuss the exact same thing for individuals? How does it *not* undermine the law to have it selectively applied?

 

I see that red has already answered this. But, to sum up, that's not what happened. You are being misled.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I see that red has already answered this. But, to sum up, that's not what happened. You are being misled.

 

 

Can someone explain how the President can choose not to enact penalties against a selected group for not being in compliance with a law and yet enforce penalties against another select group?

 

The link you gave me earlier does not explain under what authority he can do this.

[Murphy101]

Well he didn't not enact them. He just gave them a delay that he isn't giving the rest of us. :/

[redsquirrel]

Can someone explain how the President can choose not to enact penalties against a selected group for not being in compliance with a law and yet enforce penalties against another select group?

 

The link you gave me earlier does not explain under what authority he can do this

 

 

Well he didn't not enact them. He just gave them a delay that he isn't giving the rest of us. :/

 

The president didn't enact the insurance caps and changes in reporting. The department of HHS did, as is within their power to do as given to them by the law. So it is Catherine Sibelus, Secretary of HHS

 

This was written by the secretary of the Treasury in part as an explanation. It doesn't give under what power the reporting rules were changed because, again, that is apparently within the power of the department of HHS. 

 

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/pages/continuing-to-implement-the-aca-in-a-careful-thoughtful-manner-.aspx

 

Part of the concern is that employers will not offer insurance and 'dump' individuals into the insurance market. The goal is to get as many businesses as possible to keep offering insurance. So, that is why big businesses got a delay. Some conservative senators had put forward a bill to repeal the employer mandate earlier this year, and this was in part to address their concerns. 

 

And to be clear, the delay for bigger business is a mandate on companies with more than 50 employees that are already offering insurance must show that the insurance offered is within the mandate of the ACA. This is saying that if you employ over 50 people AND you already offer insurance you now have an extra year to ensure that the plans offered are in line with the ACA. That way there aren't  people having to change plans all etc.

 

So, businesses  who are already providing insurance and paying for it have an extra year to get their plans all sorted out. That is the delay in enforcement. And the authority to do so comes from the law and is under the jurisdiction of HHS.

[creekland]

Yeah, that was pretty jerky of me, wasn't it? I am sorry and I apologize.

Thanks, I do appreciate it.

 

 

I don't see the logic of what you are saying and that is prob what is sticking in my craw (Is that a think? a craw?)

 

You say you are assigning blame to all parties equally and believe that there is no stand on principle on either side. FTR, I do believe there is a stand on principle on both sides, but that doesn't really matter at this moment.

Actually, no. I was first annoying by the group that held it all hostage (mostly republicans). Then I was annoyed by those who refuse to recognize the truly essential folks at NIH (mostly democrats). So now I'm angry at both parties, but there was an order to it. It's all politics rather than caring for the people.

 

 

The point you keep coming back to is holding both sides equally responsible and you specifically mention it is due to the NIH issue. However, in your next breath you say you are fine with the ACA being delayed at least a year. What is that but denying access to affordable health care to millions of people who have never had it before?

From what I've been reading (mainly on the other thread), the ACA is good for some, not so good for others. It's not the "great for all" thing some would like to believe it is - just as what we have now is not. What we have now is also good for some and not so good for others. I'd like a solution that truly works for all. I'm not positive one exists.

[Mrs Mungo]

The WHOLE and ONLY purpose of this shutdown is Republicans trying to overturn a LAW that was passed in a constitutional manner. The only people undervaluing the worth of our government are the people holding it hostage.

 

We *know* this because they told us they were going to do it ahead of time.

 

Primary source document:

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/letter.jpeg

 

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/letter.2.jpeg

 

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/letter.3.jpeg

 

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/letter.4.jpeg

 

No amount of backtracking or attempts to shift blame can erase the *fact* that they always intended to do this.

[Mrs Mungo]

It's not the "great for all" thing some would like to believe it is -

I don't think anyone believes this or is saying this. Democrats wanted a single payer system. The ACA is the compromise that the parties reached by implementing a *lot* of things the republicans wanted. Go look at the healthcare care plan McCain laid out when he was running for president.

 

What people are saying is this is a start. This will help a lot of people. This will allow a lot more people access to preventative care. People should give it a chance instead of freaking out.

[Murphy101]

I'm not freaking out or giving it more of a chance.

 

I'm completely fed up and disenfranchised.

 

I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe, which is nothing new, but seems to be getting more and more bizzare.

 

I have no issue with the ACA being adjusted in some manner via a budget ruling. It happens all the time. In fact, it happens every time the govt makes a show about caring about the budget. Because a budget means deciding what thing to continue and what things won't continue.

 

I think the best thing about it, if there is any good thing, is that hopefully this will serve as a wake up call to every state that they should reduce federal dependence as much as possible, maybe people will be thinking about all the areas of waste, maybe people will start thinking about things the volunteer community can do instead of paid staff, etc

 

I doubt it. But when I realize I can't or don't want to rely on a certain person or agency, that is what I start thinking. How can I manage ____ without them? It's not a bad idea monetary wise.

[redsquirrel]

I'm not freaking out or giving it more of a chance.

 

I'm completely fed up and disenfranchised.

 

I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe, which is nothing new, but seems to be getting more and more bizzare.

 

I have no issue with the ACA being adjusted in some manner via a budget ruling. It happens all the time. In fact, it happens every time the govt makes a show about caring about the budget. Because a budget means deciding what thing to continue and what things won't continue.

 

I think the best thing about it, if there is any good thing, is that hopefully this will serve as a wake up call to every state that they should reduce federal dependence as much as possible, maybe people will be thinking about all the areas of waste, maybe people will start thinking about things the volunteer community can do instead of paid staff, etc

 

I doubt it. But when I realize I can't or don't want to rely on a certain person or agency, that is what I start thinking. How can I manage ____ without them? It's not a bad idea monetary wise.

Except that isn't what is happening. This budget has nothing to do with the ACA. Not passing the budget isn't going to make any change in the ACA going forward, and the small cadre holding it up know that.

 

This is simply using the budget process hostage until the government makes changes in an established law. This is an inappropriate and extreme use of the budget process. And what happens the next time they want something?

 

I am expecting the shutdown to last a couple weeks. That way it can be 'solved' by agreeing to pass the budget and raising the debt limit all at once. Both actions are going to upset some groups when it happens. It will be easier for the congressional leader to get the pain all over at once.

 

And I do understand feeling fundamentally alienated from so many things. I have certainly gone through that myself. But, I always remember that The Powers That Be probably like it the more people who feel that way and I am not willing to give them the satisfaction. But, everything has its season.

 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Except that isn't what is happening. This budget has nothing to do with the ACA. Not passing the budget isn't going to make any change in the ACA going forward, and the small cadre holding it up know that.

 

This is simply using the budget process hostage until the government makes changes in an established law. This is an inappropriate and extreme use of the budget process. And what happens the next time they want something?

To clarify: they do not have the numbers to force it. They are simply preventing Congress from conferencing through house rules.

 

Monday you can expect the Dems to put forth a discharge petition on Monday. They only need 18 republicans to pass a clean resolution that would fund the government through mid November. There are more than 20 republicans who have publicly stated that they would vote for a clean bill. But, will they defy the GOP by siding with the Dems? They are really in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation at this point.

[LibraryLover]

To clarify: they do not have the numbers to force it. They are simply preventing Congress from conferencing through house rules.

 

Monday you can expect the Dems to put forth a discharge petition on Monday. They only need 18 republicans to pass a clean resolution that would fund the government through mid November. There are more than 20 republicans who have publicly stated that they would vote for a clean bill. But, will they defy the GOP by siding with the Dems? They are really in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation at this point.

 

I am hoping that can happen. I am appreciating senators Rigell and McCain right now.

[redsquirrel]

To clarify: they do not have the numbers to force it. They are simply preventing Congress from conferencing through house rules.

 

Monday you can expect the Dems to put forth a discharge petition on Monday. They only need 18 republicans to pass a clean resolution that would fund the government through mid November. There are more than 20 republicans who have publicly stated that they would vote for a clean bill. But, will they defy the GOP by siding with the Dems? They are really in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation at this point.

 

Ah, Mrs Mungo, I see you are an optimist. I hope you are right and that, having got it out of their system, the faction feels better and then quickly passes the debt limit ceiling with no drama.

 

I think, especially now that bills paying federal employees have been passed, we are in for a longer haul. I think they are going to hold out until we are right up against the debt ceiling. Bringing this to an end means the leadership is going to be disappointing the currently powerful wing of the party and I can't see wanting to take two hard punches when it could be one for the whole thing.

but we shall see. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

 

Or maybe we are both right or wrong or something and this shutdown ends on Monday or Tuesday and then we get to do it all over again over the debt ceiling. Then we can have two shutdowns and a default.

[Farrar]

Thanks, RedSquirrel and Mrs. Mungo, for all those clear points.  I totally agree.  I'm tired of all the "blame everyone" and "they're all equally bad" sentiments.  One very small segment of Congress is holding this up.  Yes, everyone is playing politics in the wake of it and a number of people of both sides are being exasperating or bad, but it's a small group who started it and could end it.  I can't even say it's "the Republicans" because it's really a small faction of Republicans and many of the more centrist ones are just as annoyed with them as the Democrats are - perhaps even more so because they're worried about their own elections in the wake of this more than some of the Democrats are.  And they don't even have an endgame.  They've said as much.

 

The ACA is a huge change to our country in many ways and it's understandable that some people are against it.  But subverting democracy by not implementing it at this stage after it was passed, signed, validated by the Supreme Court, and there aren't enough votes to overturn it outright, would be an even bigger, more disturbing change.  Because the ACA is independently funded, it's not even part of the shutdown.  The whole thing is so frustrating.

[Mrs Mungo]

Here is a list of things that have been piecemeal approved (by the house):

 

http://www.govtrack.us/events/track-something?feed=misc:allvotes

[redsquirrel]

I just wanted to point out that the 'CR' part of a 'clean CR' is actually only a spending plan(Continuing Resolution) that will last 6 weeks. We (and when I say we, I mean me, lol) keep saying 'budget' but really it is only a 6 week spending plan. And, it is the spending plan with the sequestration cuts that the Republican leaders of Congress wanted.

 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I just wanted to point out that the 'CR' part of a 'clean CR' is actually only a spending plan(Continuing Resolution) that will last 6 weeks. We (and when I say we, I mean me, lol) keep saying 'budget' but really it is only a 6 week spending plan. And, it is the spending plan with the sequestration cuts that the Republican leaders of Congress wanted.

Good point.

[creekland]

I'm not online much this week, but just checked in again. It sure doesn't look terribly hopeful. Out of pure curiosity I went to RCP to see what the polls were like... I didn't see a single one in favor of ACA (though a few were within the margin of error).

 

I suppose that's what's extending things a bit. It's not just the politicians, the public is pretty divided as well. (sigh)

[redsquirrel]

I'm not online much this week, but just checked in again. It sure doesn't look terribly hopeful. Out of pure curiosity I went to RCP to see what the polls were like... I didn't see a single one in favor of ACA (though a few were within the margin of error).

 

I suppose that's what's extending things a bit. It's not just the politicians, the public is pretty divided as well. (sigh)

 

The public is divided about most things these days. The legality of gay marriage, what wars we fight, the Patriot Act, the uses of the NSA, the presence of religion in the public square.... Really, I could go on and on.

 

We don't go outside the legislative process to force our will on the public.

 

And, if you are really interested in governing by poll, poll after poll shows that Americans are quite supportive of the substantive parts of the ACA (Insurance companies not being able to turn people away with pre-existing conditions, no one can be denied health insurance, insurance companies having to compete for the business of individuals, a cap on how much insurance companies can spend on non-health related expenses, young adults being able to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26 etc). I am pretty sure there was a segment by one of the late nigh TV hosts where he asked people on the street if they supported the ACA, and they said no, but when asked about the substance of the bill they thought it was great.

 

And again, this is an established law, not a bill to be argued or negotiated. If someone has a better idea, then let them do the hard work to come up with legislation and get it passed. It is easy to tear something down, a lot harder to build something.

 

 

[Pawz4me]

I'm not online much this week, but just checked in again. It sure doesn't look terribly hopeful. Out of pure curiosity I went to RCP to see what the polls were like... I didn't see a single one in favor of ACA (though a few were within the margin of error).

 

In addition to the points Redsquirrel just made about polling on this issue, I think most polls on the ACA are useless because they don't separate out those who are against the ACA because they oppose government involvement or whatever, and those who oppose it because they want universal health care.

[Farrar]

In addition to the points Redsquirrel just made about polling on this issue, I think most polls on the ACA are useless because they don't separate out those who are against the ACA because they oppose government involvement or whatever, and those who oppose it because they want universal health care.

 

I've seen one where people were marginally in favor of ACA, but only if the poll didn't call it "Obamacare."  Sigh.  I mean, if you're going to be against it, be consistent, people.  Otherwise, you're just making America look dumb.

 

Regardless, I haven't seen a single poll where anywhere near a majority support shutting down the government over it.

[creekland]

Regardless, I haven't seen a single poll where anywhere near a majority support shutting down the government over it.

Have they done polls like this? I didn't see any listed on RCP. It's more of what I was looking for. I guess my thought was if the people are fairly upset over it, then it would be more easily settled. When the people are divided, it could go on forever as there are essentially as many supporters to how this is working as detractors.

 

I came across a guy today who surprised me. We were eating lunch and in casual conversation the impasse came up. He immediately said he hopes they never settle it, the gov't defaults, and states take over. That ended that conversation as I was at a loss on how to continue it. I had no idea people thought that way... I don't share it. I see mainly bad things coming from a gov't default.

[Murphy101]

Some people are sick of govt bad finances. Be it federal or state. I think those people would see govt filing bankruptcy as a financial start over.

 

I'm not one of those people.

[Farrar]

Have they done polls like this? I didn't see any listed on RCP. It's more of what I was looking for. I guess my thought was if the people are fairly upset over it, then it would be more easily settled. When the people are divided, it could go on forever as there are essentially as many supporters to how this is working as detractors.

 

I came across a guy today who surprised me. We were eating lunch and in casual conversation the impasse came up. He immediately said he hopes they never settle it, the gov't defaults, and states take over. That ended that conversation as I was at a loss on how to continue it. I had no idea people thought that way... I don't share it. I see mainly bad things coming from a gov't default.

 

They have.  I've seen at least a couple cited on the news and it was pretty overwhelming that even those against the ACA said they shouldn't shut down the government.  I would search and link, but forum rules...

 

I agree that it would be very bad if we defaulted.  I really want the country to stay intact and for there not to be a complete financial meltdown.  Apparently some people feel differently.

[swimmermom3]

Another morning wake up and check of the news.  Another disappointment - esp upon finding out one group (I think it was the House, but I was making breakfast so could be incorrect) did pass a provision to open the NIH, National Parks, and something else (forgot what), then the other group said, "no deal."

 

I dislike both groups equally for getting us into this mess.  I REALLY dislike the group not willing to compromise to keep really important things (like the NIH) open.

 

I've been disillusioned with politics for several years now only surfacing to vote in each election (primaries too).  Now I'm finding myself with a new feeling... hate.  It's not a good feeling... (and we actually aren't affected in any sort of major way).  I'd love to sweep them all out of office and turn over the matter (this matter, not all matters) to a coin toss.  Group A's plan gets Heads.  Group B's plan gets Tails.  Either way, we settle the deal and get things running again.

 

But I'll offer more :grouphug: (and new "Likes") for those affected.

 

I really don't have high hopes for gov't funding later this month.

 

I think there is a basic problem with "absolutes" and "paybacks" on both sides. Absolutes are a tricky thing. It sounds strong and righteous to say "We will never raise taxes on the wealthy" or "We will never change that healthcare legislation," but it is also short-sighted. Situations and circumstances change. To hold blindly to an absolute just because it has always been an absolute isn't necessarily a healthy, productive, or ethical road.  To use a facetious example, I may vow that I will never eat meat for ethical concerns; however, if I am starving to death, I may have to rethink that "absolute."  I don't mean that either side shouldn't take a stand on issues, but it does seem that we have too many sacred cows on both sides that have more to do with party identity than what is good for our country.

 

Even if Congress could lose a few sacred cows, the high school-level atmosphere with regards to paybacks is overwhelming. It feels really powerful to one side to block every idea and every move of the opposition regardless of the merit of those actions or ideas. Then when the tides of power change, the side that did the original blocking is stunned to find out that their actions and ideas are being blocked irrespective of merit. And so it goes. On and on and on. A marriage where only one partner has valuable ideas and personal worth, is no marriage.  We need both sides for balance and maximum value, but not like this.Good marriages are always about compromises - compromises that most of the time leave both of the partners satisfied.