Oh Brother, They Shut The Web Down Too....

[SmallyWally]

Again...wow.....

[Feathers and Fins]

No arrogance at all. I asked you had you read it and you said NO! By your own admission you did not read the bill and were making assumptions clearly off of the media you yourself outlined

mixermarkb

No, I haven't.

I'm 39, self employed, and have a wife and 6 year old to support, as well as my fishing habit. I don't have the time to read the bills. I do well to keep up with the few things I read online, NPR, and the TV news. I expect my employees, that I help vote into office to read the bills in their entirety.

Please also note I took the time to locate the BILL and read it to understand not what one media outlet or person was saying but so I knew exactly what was being argued over in congress.

I further directed you to the Bill so that you could read what you hadn't by your own admission and make an informed opinion based off of it.

I actually listen to 60's and 70's radio during the day and seldom watch the news unless its for the weather. I do see post on here and other social media regarding topics and when one interest me I will research it to learn the facts! That is FACTS not what this person or that news media wants to opinionate as fact. When I choose to comment it will be my opinion based off the facts as I have read them. If wrong I am more than happy to admit it as well. But at least I do my due diligence to try and obtain the facts prior to commenting.

[mixermarkb]

[1969Larson]

I've read it.

Withholding funding in certain areas is TOTALLY different than refusing to keep the lights turned on for everything!

I'm sorry if you guys fail to see the damage this is doing to the form of government called representative democracy.

This is a crisis on a level that we haven't seen since the Civil War, and it saddens me greatly.

I agree 100%. Vote to turn the lights back on, restore benefits one by one. Nobody is happy about this complete shutdown. I do find it interesting how much effort has gone in to shutting down things that are noticeable in an attempt to make us "feel" this shutdown. Every item that requires funding should be addressed individually without packaging up these huge bills full of riders. Vote on restoring services and funding them one at a time. Each item that my money goes to fund should stand on its own merit and find some support from all parties. If it can't, give me my money back!

[Wayne SW/MO]

I've read it.

Withholding funding in certain areas is TOTALLY different than refusing to keep the lights turned on for everything!

I'm sorry if you guys fail to see the damage this is doing to the form of government called representative democracy.

This is a crisis on a level that we haven't seen since the Civil War, and it saddens me greatly.

I believe this is the 17th time this has happened. The only thing different now is the refusal to negotiate, I.E to allow all those elected by people to have an input.

[Al Agnew]

I wasn't going to get involved in this argument, but have to point out a couple of things.

Checks and balances...I think those who think the present mess is checks and balances are barely partly right. Checks and balances work in the normal legislative process. The ACA was passed by both houses. Yes, no Republican voted for it. You can argue til the cows come home whether or not the Republicans had any interest back then in working with the other side to come up with something better, or whether they were simply not going to do anything to help give the Democrats a "victory" on health care, and you can argue just as long on whether the Democrats were willing to work with the Republicans. In my opinion, neither wanted to cooperate with the other back then. But that election gave the Democrats a supermajority, which of course is how elections can work. So that was the first check and balance...passed both houses. Second check and balance...signed by the President. Third check and balance...adjudicated by the Supreme Court. So the normal checks and balances worked. Maybe not the way some people wanted, but they worked and the bill bacame law. Civics 101.

Then, the Republicans regained the House. They voted a whole pile of times to repeal it. Senate didn't go along. President wouldn't have gone along even if the Senate had. Checks and balances worked again. Again, not the way some wanted. That's why elections have consequences. Civics 101 again.

Now we come to the present situation. One of the biggest flaws in the legislative process, in my opinion, is the ability to tack things onto it that really have nothing to do with the bill being considered. The bill being considered is to fund the whole government. It is not to defund or delay the ACA. But the Republicans tacked the whole ACA issue onto it. That's why the Democrats keep asking for a "clean" bill. But the Republicans have the right to tack anything onto any bill, as do the Democrats.

So we have both parties sniping back and forth, accusing the other of not being willing to cooperate and compromise. The Republicans' latest suggestion was to delay it, just as Obama delayed the part for "big business"...on the face of it, that seems to be fair, but Obama and the Democrats are questioning why they should have to give in to Republican extortion. And there ARE valid reasons why it was okay to delay it for some businesses, and to keep it on schedule for the vast majority of individuals NOT covered by insurance at their work.

The opponents continue to say that the majority of the American people don't want it. They say that because the House is dominated (well, at least it has a small majority) of Republicans, that the House Republicans have the right to "do what their constituents want." But...here's the political realities. The majority of Republicans didn't want this battle, and here's why. The 30 or so Tea Party Republicans are serving in "safe" districts, where strongly conservative voters completely dominate. They ARE doing what the vast majority of their constituents want. But a lot of Republicans are not in such strongly conservative Republican districts, nor are they in really strongly Republican states. And they know the reality is that in order to get core Republican "wish lists" passed, they not only have to control the House but also the Senate and Presidency...there are those checks and balances again. So as things stand, here is what the mainstream Republicans see as their political choices:

1. Go along with the Tea Party Republicans to the bitter end. This is risking alienating the moderates and independents in their district, in their state, and in the nation. But it practically insures that they won't be "primaried out"--having the strongly conservative base of their party in their district and state putting up a candidate in the next election to run against them. So they are able to get through the primaries. But in doing so, they take the chance of the moderates and independents being disgusted at them for the apparent obstructionism, and they are weakened in the general election.

2. Don't go along with the Tea Party Republicans. This means that it will be likely that they don't survive the primaries. A more strongly conservative (or, as many voters will see it, a more radical)candidate will face off against the Democrats in the next general election, and will be more likely to lose. Not only does the original legislator lose his seat, but the Republicans lose the seat there, too.

There are enough Republicans in that situation that, if they wished, they could go against the Tea Party Republicans and get a "clean" bill out of the House. But they are gambling that it's better to survive the primaries the next election and take their chances in the general election, than to take the chance they won't survive the primaries.

And here's the greater reality. People don't like the ACA (and a lot more of them don't like it when it's called Obamacare, which shows how little the average American even knows about this whole thing). But they also don't like shutting down the government to try to stop it or delay it. The majority of the people in any given legislative district might be all for doing that, but since when do the majority of people in what is possibly a minority of districts get to dictate to everybody?

Political realities, however, might dictate that both sides give something up in order to get things going again. Here's what I think should happen.

Agree to extend the deadlines for various facets of the ACA. Don't shut it down, just slow it down.

Agree to spend the time during that period in having a serious committee of both sides of the legislature, equal numbers on both sides, looking at ways of changing and improving it, fixing problems, with the mandate that they GET THE JOB DONE well before the extended deadlines come up. The Democrats pick the Republican members of the committee, the Republicans pick the Democratic members. Everything they talk about, everything they decide, everybody they listen to in making their decisions, will be a matter of public record. Let the people decide whether or not they are making a serious effort.

Agree that it's the law of the land, and there will be no more attempts to repeal it UNTIL and UNLESS those attempts are assured of passing both houses with a specific amount of bi-partisan support.

[Al Agnew]

I agree 100%. Vote to turn the lights back on, restore benefits one by one. Nobody is happy about this complete shutdown. I do find it interesting how much effort has gone in to shutting down things that are noticeable in an attempt to make us "feel" this shutdown. Every item that requires funding should be addressed individually without packaging up these huge bills full of riders. Vote on restoring services and funding them one at a time. Each item that my money goes to fund should stand on its own merit and find some support from all parties. If it can't, give me my money back!

Here's the problem with that...there will always be huge differences in what the two parties believe is WORTH restoring. This opens up a a monstrous number of arguments. Do you re-fund the EPA sooner or later? Do you re-fund the DEA? Do you re-fund grants for scientific research? Which grants? There are literally thousands, tens of thousands, of separate decisions that would have to be made to do it piecemeal, depending upon how far into the details you go. And nearly every one of them will bring on an argument between the two sides.

[Al Agnew]

I believe this is the 17th time this has happened. The only thing different now is the refusal to negotiate, I.E to allow all those elected by people to have an input.

The difference is, it has never before been held hostage by the dispute over a single law that doesn't even have much to do with it.

[1969Larson]

There are a very great number of things that are no-brainers that both sides would agree to fund. Start there. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Why is this complicated? It doesn't have to be.

Even if you like the IDEA of the government being involved in healthcare why in the world would you EVER think they could be successful at it. Name a program that the federal government hasn't run into the ground. Social Security? Nope - about to run out. Postal Service? Loses over a billion dollars a year. ($4 billion loss this year) Oh, yeah and there's that $16,000,000,000,000 mismanagement of funds we are forgetting. Now trust them with my healthcare? You kidding me?

[Feathers and Fins]

Ok Larson I will name the one and only program they run and haven't screwed up. THE FEDERAL DUCK STAMP! Hey even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often