|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are these people complete prats?
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Or is there some other explanation that's invisible to us in the rest of the world?
It was announced on our lunchtime news today that large swathes of the US government had shut down this morning because the politicians in the Congress have failed to agree the budget. It isn't even the whole budget. It's part of arguments about healthcare. So the machine stops!
The story didn't say whether the failure even to make temporary arrangements was because the politicians couldn't be bothered, the system didn't allow for it, or because the opposition thought it would make some sort of point - apart from making themselves look stupid. Apparently, it isn't the first time this has happened. We are told it's happened 17 times before.
This isn't a strike. But it is a sort of lock out, which appears to have been dealt by the immaturity of the political opposition.
My questions for discussion:-
1. Apart from 'these people are utter prats' (a ruder word springs to mind), is there any defence for their action?
2. Is there some part of the US electorate that is impressed by this sort of juvenilia? If so, who and why?
3. Unless US law is quite difference from ours, the government isn't let off being liable to pay its employees. So why is it in the taxpayers' interests to manoeuvre a situation where the state has to pay people for not working for it?
4. Why does a bicker about the budget has to produce such a drastic effect? It doesn't in other countries?
5. More fundamentally, is this an indirect consequence of a dogmatic belief in the separation of powers?
[ 10. January 2014, 21:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
As I understand it, US employment law IS completely different from ours - according to the BBC the employees affected by this will be given 'unpaid leave' with no guarantee that they will ever get their backdated pay. That would be illegal over here.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Does it mean that the GOP has already lost in 2016?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. Is there some part of the US electorate that is impressed by this sort of juvenilia? If so, who and why?
I think that both sides are unimpressed and blame the other one.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
4. Why does a bicker about the budget has to produce such a drastic effect? It doesn't in other countries?
It might be because the USA hasn't actually passed a budget since 2009. What Congress was attempting to pass wasn't a budget this time either.
Why it doesn't happen in other countries is that in most other political systems, Congress would be dissolved and there would be an election. Instead, the USA has the Senate deliberately designed to delay being able to use a House majority.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
5. More fundamentally, is this an indirect consequence of a dogmatic belief in the separation of powers?
No. The Separation of Powers is basically a good idea. The Executive and Judiciary don't have anything to do with this. The problem is that the Constitution provides no way out of a deadlock between the two houses of the Legislative Branch, where the House has a majority for one thing and the Senate a majority for its polar opposite.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mechtilde
Shipmate
# 12563
|
Posted
From your lips to God's ear. But there are Americans who so hate Obama that you can now make a political career with no ideas other than "Oppose that black dude."
Struggling very hard to love these people. They are--sorry, their agenda is--evil. And "juvenalia" is the right word for it.
--------------------
"Once one has seen God, what is the remedy?"
Sylvia Plath, "Mystic"
Posts: 517 | From: The cloud of unknowing | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Does it mean that the GOP has already lost in 2016?
The Presidency? No. Also, remember that both sides are blaming the other: the actions of Democratic Senators now aren't going to cripple the Democratic nominee in three years' time either.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
It comes down to an unpopular law that was supposed to help fix our clusterbuggered health care system but many believe is, on the whole, making it worse. That certain connected entities are getting exempted doesn't help. And neither does the congress getting a break that isn't available to us field hands doesn't go over too well either.
1. Is there any defense? To the minds of Obama, Reid, Boehner, etc., of course.
2. Campaign fundraisers, hyperpartisan types, media are some of the folks who are cool with it.
3. Normally such folks do eventually get paid.
4. Government is about power and, evidently, protecting inflated egos.
5. It probably is, but I prefer it that way.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I would say many Americans are at a loss to explain what is happening too.
I just read an article on how two political leaders of the 80's while politically opposite of each other where (Tip O' Neil and Ronald Reagan) were still able to work together. I would argue that one of the reasons why they were able to work together is because both of them had experienced a common struggle, World War II. In that struggle people learned to put aside their differences to achieve a common goal.
On the other hand, Viet Nam divided a whole generation. There were strong reactions for and against that problem.
I also think there has been an underlying racism that comes into play. Frankly, there is a sizable minority of Americans that have a strong negative reaction to a black American President. This group of people were welcomed into the Republican party beginning in the 70's and it has festered within the Republican party forcing moderates out of the party.
Does this mean the party will lose 2016? I would hope so. Frankly, unless the Republicans wake up I think the party is in its death throes, but I am a left of center Democrat so I would not mind seeing the Republican party as it is now constituted die out.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The story didn't say whether the failure even to make temporary arrangements was because the politicians couldn't be bothered, the system didn't allow for it, or because the opposition thought it would make some sort of point - apart from making themselves look stupid. Apparently, it isn't the first time this has happened. We are told it's happened 17 times before.
I think you mis-heard that one. This is a fairly uncommon occurrence, one that last happened 17 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. Apart from 'these people are utter prats' (a ruder word springs to mind), is there any defence for their action?
The Republicans in the House of Representatives (who are the sand in the gears of government in this particular instance) claim they're "standing up for principle". Given that the "principle" in question is that the working poor shouldn't have access to affordable health care it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for their position. This is essentially an act of legislative hostage taking, threatening to shoot the government (metaphorically, of course) unless the legislative agenda rejected in last November's elections is enacted.
On a more pragmatic level, Congressional Republicans have seen several of their peers successfully defeated in primaries by Tea Party challengers attacking from the right. In the highly gerrymandered House of Representatives a Republican Congressman has much more to fear from a primary challenge by a more conservative candidate than from a Democratic opponent in the general election. In short, there's no electoral incentive for them to do anything other than oppose whatever Obama (or Congressional Democrats) wants to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. Is there some part of the US electorate that is impressed by this sort of juvenilia? If so, who and why?
Mostly the extremely far right, those who are convinced that the Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as 'Obamacare') will be the End of American Civilization As We Know It.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
3. Unless US law is quite difference from ours, the government isn't let off being liable to pay its employees. So why is it in the taxpayers' interests to manoeuvre a situation where the state has to pay people for not working for it?
The U.S. federal government can spend no money that is not approved by Congress. This includes the salaries of its employees. If the Congress cannot pass an appropriations bill, the only monies going out will be those whose expenditure does not require continual re-authorization (e.g. Social Security payments). Non-essential government employees are currently home without pay. Essential government employees (e.g. the military, air traffic controllers, etc.) are expected to stay on the job and will be paid for doing so when Congress passes an appropriations bill the president is willing to sign.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
4. Why does a bicker about the budget has to produce such a drastic effect? It doesn't in other countries?
The U.S. federal government is deliberately designed with a number of 'veto points', where action (or, in this case, inaction) by some portion of the government can stop or thwart the actions of other branches. In theory (and often in practice) this is to prevent the accumulation of power in the hand of a few state actors who may abuse it. The current practice of using these veto points to disrupt all government action until certain demands are met is a recent aberration.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
5. More fundamentally, is this an indirect consequence of a dogmatic belief in the separation of powers?
See above.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
If, as I understand it, the result is that NO federal employees are being paid, does that mean that US forces are, technically, unemployed?
If so, how does being "principled" (if you are an anti-Obama Republicam) square with putting the country in a position of defencelessness>
Our own parliamentary system may be weird, strange and unrepresentative much this still makes it look reasonable(ish)...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I also think there has been an underlying racism that comes into play. Frankly, there is a sizable minority of Americans that have a strong negative reaction to a black American President. This group of people were welcomed into the Republican party beginning in the 70's and it has festered within the Republican party forcing moderates out of the party.
It goes a bit deeper than that. A large part of historical American opposition to new social programs is the fear that "those people" will benefit disproportionately from them. I think the fact that the American uninsured are disproportionately non-white is a factor for many opponents of the Affordable Care Act on the far right. In other words, it's not just about the skin tone of the current president, though I'm sure it's an aggravating factor.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
1. Apart from 'these people are utter prats' (a ruder word springs to mind), is there any defence for their action?
Not really. Shutting down the government never accomplishes anything. On the other hand, the average American experiences no negative effects from the government shutting down. Sucks for the people that do.
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
2. Is there some part of the US electorate that is impressed by this sort of juvenilia? If so, who and why?
Of course some portion of the US electorate is impressed with this sort of thing. Why else would the government have been shut down 17 times before despite the fact shutting down the government accomplishes little? Who? Usually, it's the more conservative Republicans. Why? Depends on the time it was shutdown.
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
3. Unless US law is quite difference from ours, the government isn't let off being liable to pay its employees. So why is it in the taxpayers' interests to manoeuvre a situation where the state has to pay people for not working for it?
Well, that's complicated. Some employees it pays. Some it doesn't pay. Some keep working. Some don't. Believe it or not there is a law governing what happens when government shuts down.
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
4. Why does a bicker about the budget has to produce such a drastic effect? It doesn't in other countries?
The effects aren't all that drastic. I personally don't care what other countries do. From my perspective, gridlock serves a very important purpose.
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
5. More fundamentally, is this an indirect consequence of a dogmatic belief in the separation of powers?
You mean separation of powers among the three branches of government. No not really.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
There is no solution to this impasse. I have long thought the US should petition Parliament to reinstate our colonial status.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
5. More fundamentally, is this an indirect consequence of a dogmatic belief in the separation of powers?
You mean separation of powers among the three branches of government. No not really.
It's more a function of the related, but separate, concept of checks and balances.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Normally such folks do eventually get paid.
No, they don't. The military does, along with all the other "essential employees" who are required to work without pay for the duration of the shutdown. But the "nonessential" personnel -- most of them -- are sent home, it's unpaid leave, and they are not given back pay. Why would the Congress allow them to be paid when they didn't work?
And this is not just going to affect government employees. Half or more of the people in the building I work in work for the FAA. So the little café in the building where I work won't be getting much business; the owner will be working by herself, I think, and the other employees will not be working.
The elderly folks who receive Meals on Wheels, or the young moms who receive WIC will be missing some meals, no matter what happens.
Cancer treatment is being stopped for a lot of people.
Research projects are being stopped. A lot of them will have to be scrapped or started over, so there's a vast amount of money wasted, and high-end researchers thinking about leaving the US for better places to work. (Think about what happened in Germany before and during WWII, with their brain drain. Not good for any of us.)
Boehner is terrified of being Tea Partied in the next primary. A majority of the House, a majority of the REPUBLICANS in the house, would pass a clean Continuing Resolution if he brought it to the floor. But he's a coward. He cares more for his own prestige than he does for the country.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If, as I understand it, the result is that NO federal employees are being paid, does that mean that US forces are, technically, unemployed?
Employees who are designated as "essential" are still working, but not being paid. They will get back pay when this whole mess is over.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Does it mean that the GOP has already lost in 2016?
It lost 2012. The majority of the vote for House representatives went to democrats in 2012, but the districts are so gerrymandered, republicans could cling to power.
The representatives holding things up at this point tend to be from the most gerrymandered of gerrymandered districts. They are from such overwhelmingly republican districts that it is fairly certain they will not personally suffer for this crap.
Sigh.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why else would the government have been shut down 17 times before despite the fact shutting down the government accomplishes little?
It wasn't. See above.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
FYI, I am one of those federal employees who will now be out of a job until Congress can get it's act together. They are playing politics with my life. I am my family's only source of income (if you don't count my daughters part time minimum wage job at a winery). Today I had to come in for no more than 4 hours for shutdown procedures - basically to get my "pink slip", clean up my desk, leave out of office notices on email and voicemail... and then go home. and NOT get paid.
Congress CAN later decide to pay us for our time. that's what happened 17 years ago. But they have to actually agree to do so. do you see this bunch agreeing to ANYTHING? let alone to spending more money? yeah, I figure I"m out of luck.
Around here (DC metro area) so many people work for the government and/or are dependant on busness from government workers, that the impacts of this shutdown will be tremendous if it last more than a couple of days. Meanwhile, I and many other workers have already been furloughed roughly one day every two weeks since April. that's a fairly high percentage of our incomes that we lost already. THis on top of a freeze on hiering, so we're all doing more work for less money, since people are leaving or retiring, but can't be replaced, we haven't had a cost of living increase in 3 years, no promotions.
This is very serious. and the thing is that what they are debating right now (that they didn't agree on before midnight) was not an actual budget. It was a continuing resolution, which basically says "we can't agree on a new budget, but we want the government to keep working, using last year's numbers, FOR A FEW MORE WEEKS". yep, the CR would only extend things for a few weeks, and then we'd have to do it all over again. oh... and of course there is the debt ceiling issue looming. Expect to see this going on for some time. I'm polishing up my tin cup. you may see me on the corner somewhere, asking for spare change.
Ugh.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
snowgoose
Silly goose
# 4394
|
Posted
As I type this my husband, a federal civil servant, is at work arranging an "orderly shutdown." The folks in his office are given 4 hours to do this, then they--and hundreds of thousands more--are sent home to wait the whole mess out.
After the last shutdown the "non-essential" employees were given back pay for the time they were locked out of their jobs; it is unlikely that it will happen this time. This is on top of the 2 weeks of unpaid leave they were already forced to take earlier this year because of the sequester.
[cross-posted with Anyuta]
The Affordable Care Act (the ACA, aka Obamacare) is already the law of the land. What happens to the people who have already signed up for it if Congress defunds it?
The Republicans are holding the whole country hostage because they were unable to stop the ACA from being passed into law, and are using an extremely sleazy tactic to attempt to defeat it by just refusing to pay for it.
[ 01. October 2013, 14:08: Message edited by: snowgoose ]
--------------------
Lord, what can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the Reaper Man? --Terry Pratchett
Save a Siamese!
Posts: 3868 | From: Tidewater Virginia | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
It seems to be a problem that stems back to the way the whole US government is pieced together. The American constitution, along with its various amendments simply weren't designed to cope with modern politics.
I heard one comment this morning that it was assumed there would be goodwill between parties. So as soon as that assumption is proved false, the strict adherence to the constitution is left floundering.
It seems to demonstrate the downsides to having a constitution that is codified and pretty much set in stone, though I freely admit I'm a non-expert in the area, looking in from the outside.
From my perspective on this side of the Atlantic, it is little surprise that a country that grinds itself to a halt in such a stupid way is also the country that has gifted the world biblical literalism and is a hotbed of fundamentalism.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
We seem to forget that recent quagmires in the Canadian and Belgian governments. Things like this happen under lots of different constitutions for lots of reasons.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The story didn't say whether the failure even to make temporary arrangements was because the politicians couldn't be bothered, the system didn't allow for it, or because the opposition thought it would make some sort of point - apart from making themselves look stupid. Apparently, it isn't the first time this has happened. We are told it's happened 17 times before.
I think you mis-heard that one. This is a fairly uncommon occurrence, one that last happened 17 years ago.
No, by a weird coincidence, it's both. This used to happen more frequently when Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton vetoed bills, most of them more than once. The difference this time is that no bill even reached the President's desk. So whoever's to blame, it's not Obama.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
The Affordable Care Act (the ACA, aka Obamacare) is already the law of the land. What happens to the people who have already signed up for it if Congress defunds it?
No one is signed up for it yet. Today (October 1, 2013) is actually the first day anyone can sign up for the health insurance exchanges. Interestingly, despite the government being partially shut down registering for 'Obamacare' is still possible, since the process is automated through a website and partially administered by the states (rather than being a solely federal program). There may be some problems on January 1 when the first benefits are supposed to be paid out if no appropriations bill has cleared Congress by that time, but if that's the case the U.S. will have bigger problems.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I heard one comment this morning that it was assumed there would be goodwill between parties. So as soon as that assumption is proved false, the strict adherence to the constitution is left floundering.
That's kind of a bullshit myth of an ahistorical "Golden Age". The framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed there would be mutual suspicion and distrust between the various parts of the government. To borrow Madison's phrase, the idea behind checks and balances was to "thwart ambition with ambition".
There was, however, an assumption that the various actors would be more interested in basic governance than in letting the whole thing burn out of spite.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It does make me wonder if it's possible to have a puppet government in the US where the party in power is actually controlled by the opposition. If all they have to do to shut down the government is disagree on one aspect and refuse to play ball at all, then it seems the entire government is held to ransom by the opposition whenever they want to throw a hissy fit in their prams.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It does make me wonder if it's possible to have a puppet government in the US where the party in power is actually controlled by the opposition. If all they have to do to shut down the government is disagree on one aspect and refuse to play ball at all, then it seems the entire government is held to ransom by the opposition whenever they want to throw a hissy fit in their prams.
There isn't really a party in power unless it controls the white house, house of representatives and the senate. Right now there is disagreement on an aspect and each is holding government for ransom, standing their ground, etc., how ever one looks at it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The story didn't say whether the failure even to make temporary arrangements was because the politicians couldn't be bothered, the system didn't allow for it, or because the opposition thought it would make some sort of point - apart from making themselves look stupid. Apparently, it isn't the first time this has happened. We are told it's happened 17 times before.
I think you mis-heard that one. This is a fairly uncommon occurrence, one that last happened 17 years ago.
No, by a weird coincidence, it's both. This used to happen more frequently when Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton vetoed bills, most of them more than once. The difference this time is that no bill even reached the President's desk. So whoever's to blame, it's not Obama.
Yes, Obama does have blame in this since he is signaling what he would veto.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The problem is that the Constitution provides no way out of a deadlock between the two houses of the Legislative Branch, where the House has a majority for one thing and the Senate a majority for its polar opposite.
Why the hell not? It's not like it could be beyond the imagination of the founders that two elected bodies could ever disagree with each other. And why hasn't anythign been done about this deadlock after previous times? In Britain disagreements between the two Houses were resolved by convention and the monarch's ability to create peers at will. In 1909 the constitutional crisis between the Commons and the Lords meant it automatically forced a new election. Then the commons wrote the 1911 Act to prevent it happening again and King George forced it past the Lords to be made into law. Why the hell hasn't the US amended its own constitution in the 230 years since its foundation?
It's almost as though they enjoy playing this game! Perhaps holding the knife of governmental collapse and economic woe to the throat of the nation adds a certain thrill to politics that is missing from other situations.
[ 01. October 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Yes, Obama does have blame in this since he is signaling what he would veto.
Indeed. In a move no one could possibly have anticipated Obama is standing behind the signature legislative accomplishment of his first term, something already passed by both houses of Congress in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court fifteen months ago. Who would ever have expected such a thing?
That bastard! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This is what, the twenty-seventh Republican request for a "do over"? Except it's not a request, it's blackmail.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The problem is that the Constitution provides no way out of a deadlock between the two houses of the Legislative Branch, where the House has a majority for one thing and the Senate a majority for its polar opposite.
Why the hell not? It's not like it could be beyond the imagination of the founders that two elected bodies could ever disagree with each other.
America has sometime been referred to as "the Frozen Republic" since the numerous veto points often freeze the status quo in place. The founders expected frequent deadlocks to prevent all but the most popular changes. They either didn't expect such leverages to be used in an attempt to burn the whole thing to the ground, or regarded such burnings as an occasionally necessary purgative.
There are historical precedents for this sort of behavior, though they don't turn out so well.
quote:
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.
From one of Abraham Lincoln's more notable speeches.
[ 01. October 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: This is what, the twenty-seventh Republican request for a "do over"?
Forty-third.
quote:
Zach82: We seem to forget that recent quagmires in the Canadian and Belgian governments.
The Belgian case is nothing like this. It takes some time to form a coalition there (sometimes a looong time), but in the meanwhile government continues to function.
[ 01. October 2013, 16:08: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We seem to forget that recent quagmires in the Canadian and Belgian governments. Things like this happen under lots of different constitutions for lots of reasons.
What Canadian Government quagmire? There were three minority governments (hung parliaments) in a row 2004-2011, but that is normal, healthy and an accepted part of our system.
Further, in Canada, Estimates (which become appropriation bills) are passed routinely in March. If the budget process is interrupted (as it was in 2011 by a general election), the Government can and does draw against Estimates using Governor General's Warrants, which is essentially the Government begging the Governor General for an advance on its allowance. But it works.
What is happening in the US cannot happen in Canada under a Westminster type Constitution.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Essentially this is the situation.
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) passed the Senate & House and became law. A highly vocal minority within the GOP wants to block this law by any means necessary, and they have taken the opportunity to try and force the issue by refusing to agree to raise the government's debt ceiling until their demands are met. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, that means the government cannot borrow money to pay employees, provide services, etc., and thus has to shut parts of the operation down until the debt ceiling is raised.
Personally, I'm surprised that the Tea Party Republicans are choosing this hill to die on, but it's their funeral. I have a hard time figuring out what might make them look sillier; I'm not a big fan of the ACA, and regard it as a giant gimme for insurance companies (we should be dismantling them and introducing single-payer health care in this country, not enabling their parasitic and sleazy asses)--it is, however a step, however tiny, in the right direction.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
The Republicans in Congress have a habit of taking the federal government hostage rather than concede to a Democratic White House - as they did with Clinton 17 years ago. Their behaviour over the ACA, which was passed legally and survived Supreme Court review, is truly astonishing. It's the closest they can get to a coup, essentially. Hold the whole government to ransom for taking back a law that was passed fairly.
Christie is their best hope for 2016 but because he dares to disagree with some GOP policies and has problems with their darling Rand Paul, it's going to be tough for him to get the party machine behind him. And even if they did, look what running for President did to Mitt Romney, who switched from a fiscally conservative social moderate into a right wing parody version of himself.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
The Affordable Care Act (the ACA, aka Obamacare) is already the law of the land. What happens to the people who have already signed up for it if Congress defunds it?
No one is signed up for it yet.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the ACA. The ACA is not just the marketplaces. It is 24 year olds being able to be held on their parents' insurance. It is insurance companies being made to spend at least 80% of their income on care rather than overhead. It is an end to lifetime caps on coverage. It is an end to refusing coverage for preexisting conditions or dropping coverage if someone gets sick. It's probably a bunch of other stuff that's not coming to mind. Most of them are already in place and working great.
It's not just marketplaces.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Christie is their best hope for 2016 but because he dares to disagree with some GOP policies and has problems with their darling Rand Paul, it's going to be tough for him to get the party machine behind him. And even if they did, look what running for President did to Mitt Romney, who switched from a fiscally conservative social moderate into a right wing parody version of himself.
This.
Between their extreme right-wing philosophy/theology and their utter inability to figure out that the white males of the 1950s aren't the majority of the eligible voters anymore, the GOP is caricaturing itself into irrelevancy.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
(we should be dismantling them and introducing single-payer health care in this country, not enabling their parasitic and sleazy asses)
From your lips to God's ear.
I'm generally not in favor of "big government" as the solution to societal problems, but the free market has shown itself in this instance to be incompetent at covering all the people at a reasonable rate. So...
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I'm still boggling at the idea that this happens often enough for government employees to have a standard procedure for it...
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for Anyuta, Snowgoose and anyone else adversely affected by this.
(which imbecile was responsible for deciding Meals on Wheels is non-essential? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) )
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Personally, I'm surprised that the Tea Party Republicans are choosing this hill to die on, but it's their funeral. I have a hard time figuring out what might make them look sillier; I'm not a big fan of the ACA, and regard it as a giant gimme for insurance companies (we should be dismantling them and introducing single-payer health care in this country, not enabling their parasitic and sleazy asses)--it is, however a step, however tiny, in the right direction.
They are fighting it because they are terrified that once it is implemented and people see the positive results (despite all the propaganda and lies) their goose is cooked. When the impending demographic tsunami breaks in this country, the Republicans will retain only a small percentage of the electorate and they cannot afford to lose the lower class whites who will undoubtedly benefit from the ACA. This insanity is just the beginning. As they lose the ability to rule by legitimate means they will increasingly seek out illegitimate ways to wield power since they believe it is "their country" and they need to "take it back" by any means possible.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Essentially this is the situation.
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) passed the Senate & House and became law. A highly vocal minority within the GOP wants to block this law by any means necessary, and they have taken the opportunity to try and force the issue by refusing to agree to raise the government's debt ceiling until their demands are met. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, that means the government cannot borrow money to pay employees, provide services, etc., and thus has to shut parts of the operation down until the debt ceiling is raised.
No, it's worse than that. You're conflating the lack of a continuing resolution, which is today's crisis, with the debt ceiling, which comes in a couple of weeks and is much, much worse.
This explains the difference.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Prats ? that is being polite The people who led to the shut down are ideologues fixated on not letting Pres. Obama win anything.
This leads to no budget . Now in London and in Ottawa that happens there is an election or the Monarch asks the opposition to try & form a government. In USA the Senate & the House of Representatives send up a budget and they are suppossed to work it into 1 budget both houses pass . Only those aforementioned ideologues tack all sort of silliness , repeal health care , that would be
like repealing NHS in UK . So nothing happens and there seems no desire to negoiate & compromise. Indeed compromise seems to have become something bad.Which it isn't it's how democracy works.
Has the GOP lost the next election ? Yes both the mid terms next years but also the Presidential election in 2016 barring a major
something happen in the body politic.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
This article in New York magazine explains how the current impasse is a deliberate Republican strategy rather than an unfortunate mishap.
quote:
The first element of the strategy is a kind of legislative strike. Initially, House Republicans decided to boycott all direct negotiations with President Obama, and then subsequently extended that boycott to negotiations with the Democratic Senate. (Senate Democrats have spent months pleading with House Republicans to negotiate with them, to no avail.) This kind of refusal to even enter negotiations is highly unusual. The way to make sense of it is that Republicans have planned since January to force Obama to accede to large chunks of the Republican agenda, without Republicans having to offer any policy concessions of their own.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Wasn't there a recent leak of the utterly ridiculous Christmas list republicans hoped to get in exchange for raising the debt ceiling? It really cast a pall on the idea that they are really there to negotiate.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
In a statement, the State Department of Health said: “In just the first hour and a half of its online launch, New York State of Health received an overwhelming response of 2 million Web site visits."
There is huge pent up demand. The Republicans should be very worried.
[ 01. October 2013, 17:56: Message edited by: art dunce ]
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
. . . repeal health care , that would be
like repealing NHS in UK .
Not exactly. Virtually everyone in the UK has at least some experience of the NHS. The problem here is that there are still fair numbers of the populace who haven't experienced any benefit from the ACA yet -- and indeed, a few places where those individuals may not see any benefit (like in my state, where only one entity is signed up to be our state "marketplace." No competition = no premium savings.)
But back on topic, the real contest here will be how many voters believe which set of lies each party tells about whose "fault" this shutdown is.
I'm afraid the Tea Party has an edge here. They have the "boil-it-down-to-irreducible-stupidity" formula down pat. Voters just loooove simple, no matter how wrong it is.
If it lasts too long, I will either be out of a job or working for free. I'm paid by and work for a not-for-profit, every bit of whose funding, through various state channels, comes from the Feds. When the Fed trickle dries up, my agency will have to close up shop.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Wasn't there a recent leak of the utterly ridiculous Christmas list republicans hoped to get in exchange for raising the debt ceiling? It really cast a pall on the idea that they are really there to negotiate.
Indeed there was*.
quote:
Behind closed doors on Thursday, they laid out their demands for a debt ceiling increase that include the health law delay, fast-track authority to overhaul the tax code, construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, offshore oil and gas production and more permitting of energy exploration on federal lands.
The legislation would also roll back regulations on coal ash, block new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on greenhouse gas production, eliminate a $23 billion fund to ensure the orderly dissolution of failed major banks, eliminate mandatory contributions to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, limit medical malpractice lawsuits and increase means testing for Medicare, among other provisions.
I'm not seeing any upside for the Obama administration to agree to any of these demands. All it would demonstrate is that this kind of legislative hostage taking is a tactic that works and encourage its future use.
--------------------
*The New York Times has a ridiculous paywall that allows non-subscribers to access ten articles for free per calendar month. Only click through the link if you're a NYT subscriber or feel like using one of your ten monthly Times passes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
From my perspective on this side of the Atlantic, it is little surprise that a country that grinds itself to a halt in such a stupid way is also the country that has gifted the world biblical literalism and is a hotbed of fundamentalism.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Does it mean that the GOP has already lost in 2016?
There's always hope. They have certainly shot themselves in the foot as far as anyone except the Tea Party is concerned.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The problem here is that there are still fair numbers of the populace who haven't experienced any benefit from the ACA yet -- and indeed, a few places where those individuals may not see any benefit (like in my state, where only one entity is signed up to be our state "marketplace." No competition = no premium savings.)
Not necessarily. The ACA delivers lower premiums partly from competition but mostly from expanding the pool of insured persons. This works particularly well if the pool is expanded by adding in younger (i.e. generally healthier) people, as the ACA preferentially does.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But back on topic, the real contest here will be how many voters believe which set of lies each party tells about whose "fault" this shutdown is.
The New Yorker did a demographic breakdown on the Congressional Districts of what Charles Krauthammer dubbed "the Suicide Caucus" (a.k.a. the hardcore House Republicans who signed on to Mark Meadows' letter to John Boehner). It's pretty much what you'd expect.
quote:
Most of the members of the suicide caucus have districts very similar to Meadows’s. While the most salient demographic fact about America is that it is becoming more diverse, Republican districts actually became less diverse in 2012. According to figures compiled by The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman, a leading expert on House demographics who provided me with most of the raw data I’ve used here, the average House Republican district became two percentage points more white in 2012.
The members of the suicide caucus live in a different America from the one that most political commentators describe when talking about how the country is transforming.
Short version: the districts represented by the most intransigent House Republicans are a lot whiter and slightly less educated than the rest of America.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: The New Yorker did a demographic breakdown on the Congressional Districts of what Charles Krauthammer dubbed "the Suicide Caucus" (a.k.a. the hardcore House Republicans who signed on to Mark Meadows' letter to John Boehner). It's pretty much what you'd expect.
I wonder what would happen if you'd compare this with a map of the districts where the most people live who need the ACA.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Curiously, you'd probably see that many of those same districts benefit strongly from the ACA. They tend to be in states which had minimal regulation of the individual insurance market and thus had a lot of underwriting and uninsured people.
The working poor in Flyover Country will benefit strongly from the ACA.
The turkeys really did vote for Christmas.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I'm generally not in favor of "big government" as the solution to societal problems, but the free market has shown itself in this instance to be incompetent at covering all the people at a reasonable rate. So...
The government has a sorry record, too. I looked the other day at what % of our gdp the federal government already spends on medical and it is there with what other countries spend on everyone. If Obama, Reid and Boner came over to help me work on a car I'd expect them to show up with a rake, hoe and a shovel.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
