The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found widespread misconceptions about the health care law, including the notion that government panels would be set up to make decisions about end-of-life care for Medicare recipients — the so-called death panels.

Nearly two-thirds of those polled said they did not know that the health insurance exchanges were set to open on Oct. 1, including almost three-quarters of uninsured Americans. And half of Americans were under the impression that the law created a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private sector insurance plans.

Four in 10 Americans held the misconception that illegal immigrants would receive financial assistance to attain health insurance, and the same proportion said they believed the government would set up death panels.

Among the 51 percent of Americans who said they did not have enough information to know how the law would impact their family, financial concerns were at the forefront. When asked what their main question was about the health care law, one in five wanted to know about costs of plans and what enrollees would be expected to pay, followed by a desire for a basic summary of the law and how it will work.

....

In related news, 2/3 of American's appear to suddenly lose ability to use Google to find basic information online.

all the tea party proves is that if you are backed by enough money you can change the conversation to whatever you want :)

The only thing missing from their misconceptions is mandatory gas chambers...

I was wrong, my brother, active duty army, recieved 1\2 his last pay check. He was told that he would not be getting paid next pay period. Over the weeked the army provided bbq for soldiers to eat.
My son called and said all college military athletics are suspended.
People sacrificing their time laid up in worse than prison conditions are being fluff on because of a quack health care law. Good fluffing work senators representatives and almighty lord obama. Everyone of them should be immediately shot Chinese style.

Lol this is awesome

If you recall, 2010 started off with Scott Brown winning the Senate seat in Mass based on running as the key vote. (It didn't end up mattering as the Democrats used reconcilation to circumvent the legislative process that otherwise would have allowed a filibuster). Then, in November, they won 63 seats to take control of the House. I'm not sure that's a "number of small local elections in gerrymandered" districts, particularly because legislative redistricting would not actually impact seats until the following election cycle (2012). It was the largest change in House seats in over 60 years. And the biggest item they ran on was opposing Obamacare. So it's hard to read Pang argue for using the 2012 election as a referendum (despite some folks on the right trying to cast it that way) while entirely ignoring the huge sweep of 2010.

Sure, delaying the employer mandate could be viewed as a compromise of his own signature law. The only problem is that no one--not even Congressional Democrats--were actually consulted. So really it's a compromise with one's self. So, yes in literal terms, it's a compromise. However, Pang was arguing that the Republicans were being absurd in demanding anything such as delaying the individual mandate and they were doing it despite the law existing and despite SCOTUS upholding the Constitutionality of it. And I pointed out the President did exactly the same thing despite the law and despite SCOTUS ;).

Yes, the President, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, etc have met before. It's how we got sequestration, but how does that change the President's responsibility to at least try to give the appearance of leading? What, he can't be bothered on this subject? Too busy playing golf on a Saturday while the House votes on it? C'mon, seriously. Even Bob Woodward agrees:
http://freebeacon.com/...s-on-the-presidents-head/

Ask them how anything works in government and unless you're polling a very small segment of the population that's probably within a 10 mile radius of where I'm sitting, you're bound to get similar results. For example, ask them where the majority of our debt comes from. You will immediately hear China. Bah, I spent way too much time in crosstabs last cycle.

Anyway, Pang's original point of saying people supported the law (or at least weren't opposed to it, as a majority) was wrong. RCP's list of polls shows that. Whether they understand the law, that's another story. I'm also willing to bet most folks here don't know many of the law either.

From one of our sales directors JUST NOW on email:

"Hey guys, apparently the NCES [National Center for Education Statistics] website is down due to the gov't shutdown... anyone know of another place for the same information?"

I then went to check a few...

whitehouse.gov has a disclaimer up saying information on the site may be out of date.

bls.gov has a similar "not being updated" notice.

nasa.gov is down entirely.

fcc.gov has a special notice up with links to the "essential" resources still available.

even fema.gov says portions of their site may not be updated.

FUN FUN FUN in the USA!!!

The best story I've seen is this one:
http://hotair.com/...s-to-visit-wwii-memorial/

The WWII vets would have nothing of it. Barricaded/shut out of their memorial? Nope, they just moved the barricades and dared NPS to arrest them (NPS caved and decided to permit them in and figure out a work-around policy).

Just like D-Day

Thumper,

My numbers came from 3 different news broadcasts on CBC (after work), CNN (before MNF) and NBC (before the Daily show) last night. Someone else in this thread posted some other links to polls that agree with what I saw. Thanks for posting your source that backs up your viewpoint. Here's another one that agrees with my viewpoint again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...care-polls_n_4018888.html
So I'm right now and you're wrong again, right? 5 second google search.

Also, the American people being in favour of Obamacare aka not defunding aka "let's see how it works" aka "i have no clue how it works, but it sounds better than nothing" was a subpoint to the larger point re: Republicans being whiney, bratty babies who are holding the country hostage unless they get their way.

Others have reubtted your posts on this thread, so I haven't felt the need to jump back in again til now even though you gave my post a multi-quote, point-by-point breakdown. But my point isn't wrong; it just doesn't agree with the polling that you're willing to accept.

+1 for Canada :)

eeeek I agree with mdevol...

"MAJORITY of Americans WANT Oabamacare to go into effect as an incremental step toward a better healthcare system"

Your words, not mine. The problem is that you're then trying to defend them by citing polling data showing Americans don't support a government shutdown to stop Obamacare. Fine, but that's not the same thing as saying they WANT Obamacare. Ergo, why I showed you a link with people saying they don't want it.

Not sure if you need this, but you do realize that redistricting isn't done by the U.S. Congress but by the states? A change in control in U.S. Congress doesn't lead to state-level redistricting, its the other way around. The republicans embarked on major redistricting efforts in many states prior to the 2010 election.

http://www.publicmapping.org/what-is-redistricting




Not in my view... There were many items they ran on, collectively anti-Obama. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was certainly one of those issues and was incredibly mis-represented then as well. People were more attuned (and upset) over the Wall Street Bailout, 9% unemployment, and even the illegal immigration debate.



You didn't read the link did you?



The President can't go run Congress for them. They need to send him a bill. It isn't his job to run the House or to get the House and Senate to agree. There is no point in him sitting on the steps of the House repeating the same thing over and over again to the idiots there. His position was made clear well in advance (not waiting until the last minute to hammer out something). If you think coddling to the House's juvenile behavior will be constructive in the short or long term, you've got another think coming.

What the president rightly learned from previous incidents and compromises is that if you show you will cave in to this extreme behavior, they'll just do it again next time. Its positive reinforcement of bad behavior, and we all know you cannot deal with an unruly group of children [U.S. House] that way. This is akin to the "not negotiating with terrorists" mantra.

I'm not going to focus much energy arguing semantics with you when you're so far off base from the core of the issues being discussed... but "want it to go INTO EFFECT" was right in there -- as in, do you want it to start up and have funding, which was the default since it's currently funded now while apparently?

additionally, "approval polls," as you posted, are not the same thing and in this case seems more for the spin factor than the underlying truth. people can not APPROVE of something, but still want it over NOTHING.

as I said, you're pretty off focus, so I'll leave at that rather than devolving further into arguing one point/position that I would actually gladly abandon as my disgust is more for the way the politics is being handled by the Republican party over the duration of Obama's term.

honestly, I don't have a horse in this race

[quote poster=Atryn; 26618; 492065]

Not sure if you need this, but you do realize that redistricting isn't done by the U.S. Congress but by the states? A change in control in U.S. Congress doesn't lead to state-level redistricting, its the other way around. The republicans embarked on major redistricting efforts in many states prior to the 2010 election.

http://www.publicmapping.org/what-is-redistricting




Not in my view... There were many items they ran on, collectively anti-Obama. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was certainly one of those issues and was incredibly mis-represented then as well. People were more attuned (and upset) over the Wall Street Bailout, 9% unemployment, and even the illegal immigration debate.



You didn't read the link did you?



The President can't go run Congress for them. They need to send him a bill. It isn't his job to run the House or to get the House and Senate to agree. There is no point in him sitting on the steps of the House repeating the same thing over and over again to the idiots there. His position was made clear well in advance (not waiting until the last minute to hammer out something). If you think coddling to the House's juvenile behavior will be constructive in the short or long term, you've got another think coming.

What the president rightly learned from previous incidents and compromises is that if you show you will cave in to this extreme behavior, they'll just do it again next time. Its positive reinforcement of bad behavior, and we all know you cannot deal with an unruly group of children [U.S. House] that way. This is akin to the "not negotiating with terrorists" mantra.
[/quote]

I'm fully aware states do redistricting as I worked on a bill in one of them ;). But, again, they don't go into effect until the election following the census. In this case, that's 2012. So again, your rebuttal that Republicans won the seats in 2010 because of gerrymandering is irrelevant since they were playing in the same district lines that gave Democrats control of the House from 2006-2010 (technically from Jan. 07-Jan. 11, but for our purposes that's irrelevant).

Yes, many issues impacted the election. But how can one argue that 2012 is a referendum on Obamacare while simultaneously saying 2010 had little or nothing to do with it? Right, and that was my point.

I read your link and stand by the he didn't consult anyone point, which the Asst. Sec all but says. If you're talking about compromise referred to on the length of applications all I can say is, ha, they compromised on a proposed rule during a comment period (it wasn't etched into stone the same way).

Agreed, the President can't run Congress for them. And, quite frankly, nor should he. However, if he's going to whine they're not doing what he wants then he should either suggest something beyond repeating the same thing or get out of the way and let Senate Democrats do it. Who, by the way, also rejected attempted to negotiate. If you recall, it was Sen. Maj. Leader Reid who convinced Obama to cancel his meeting (see Politico story) and it was Sen. Reid who rejected sending any negotiators to the conference committee. They have a duty to at least try.

They oppose the law, but they don't support shutting down government to stop it. That's essentially what all of the polling data says.

The argument in the weeds would be saying people support elements of the law (eg, pre-existing conditions), therefore they really support the law in principle. Or vice versa, they overwhelmingly oppose things like the individual mandate therefore they oppose any similar law. And that's why you see the GOP argument for "repeal and replace" rather than just repeal.

Anyway, yes, it's a circle that we could go around for days.

I enjoy how the pro-Republican people keep saying the Democrats need to come to the negotiating table.

What's the purpose of a negotiation at this point? This will sound repetitive to what everyone else said because it is. First off, the President isn't going to give up on his primary domestic achievement. Furthermore, it was a law that was passed by Congress, signed into law, and adjudicated in the Court system.

Since then, as Pang said, the most recent election, the President was re-elected, and as someone else said (Atryn maybe?), Democrats actually won more total votes in the House than Republicans (but failed to win a majority of seats because of the increased gerrymandering of districts, whether that goes back to 2010 or 2000), and even picked up a few seats in each house.

Americans voted more for the party of Obamacare than for the party against Obamacare. Furthermore, even though only about 40-45% of Americans are actually in favor of Obamacare, 72% are against shutting down government to stop it. Lastly, (here's my one new point), the polling data for Medicare way back before it's implementation was similar, with polling data being in the 40s in support. Since it actually took effect, Medicare has had a strong majority in favor of it (Meet the Press last Sunday stated about 80%, iirc, but I haven't personally looked for or found any such polls).

Beyond this, there's no logical reason why funding the government should be connected to the implementation of this law, other than the fact that it's a time when the Republicans know that holding up such funding is damaging and they want to try to exercise any leverage they can in an attempt to raise their profile.

So with all that in mind, why would the Democrats sit down with the House Republicans so long as they continue to even connect the funding of the overall government with the implementation of the ACA?

It's completely ridiculous.

look for anybody trying to stand on 2008 and 2012 elections as a referendum on Obamacare, please see 2010 elections.

This election told you everything you want to know about how the country feels of Obamacare and how it was passed.

A nationwide wave that saw over 1000 local and national elections go to the Republicans, call it jerrymandering if you must, it was an all out ass-kicking. The largest gains made by a party in the house in 62 years. I breaking up of the supermajority in the Senate. The country spoke loud and clear. The administration told them to shut up.

It wasnt until Obama got his "machine" out in the streets that the Dems started to look better (or less worse) in the districts.

The 2012 election was one of insane voter suppression and negative attack ads and completely dodging and misinformation from both sides. It was pathetic.

It will be interesting to see if Obama lends his network to Clinton in 2016 or if it will go to Biden.

That said, this shutdown will only be felt by non-active duty military and the residents and federal workers in Washington. Outside of that it will be very minimal.

I fully expect the debt limit talks to also be contentious with Obamacare attatched and if the Dems dont budge, we will go over that cliff too.

US govt is ranked too high

Mentioned before. The 2010 election was a backlash against the Dems not over the Affordable Care Act but over many things. Many of which were still from the previous administration. Obama was elected in 2008, took office in 2009 and the people were unhappy that between then and the 2010 election we still had 9% unemployment and we had bailed out Wall Street.

Frankly, I think Wall Street is singing and dancing right now that everyone is rewriting history to say the only political issue that mattered in those elections was the Affordable Care Act when it was the Wall Street Meltdown, resulting economic crisis, Government bailouts (too big to fail anyone? anyone? bueller?) etc. that were the big issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if WS is paying off both sides to rewrite history.

Don't forget, October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month!!!

http://www.fbi.gov/...rity-awareness-month-2013

"October marks the 10th anniversary of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Established by presidential directive in 2004..."

i am one of the few americans that would make a fluffload of money if the U.S. no longer had the world currency.

Senator McCain, who if you recall is no fan of Pres. Obama's politics, said: "The people spoke. Elections have consequences," and in doing so was basically telling Sen. Cruz to shut up because the people must want Obamacare if they re-elected Pres. Obama.

Really, so Scott Brown didn't win his seat by oh saying he would be the key vote to stop Obamacare? And then he won in good ole MA of all places.

Yes, following his victory was the emergence of the Tea Party. It centered on a series of ideas from too big too fail, to debt, and Obamacare/ACA, but claiming Obamacare wasn't a major part of the 2010 election cycle is just woefully naive or intentionally misleading.

The funny part of this all is I agree with you guys that the Republicans should switch their negotiating "ask," but I don't agree with rewriting history. And a large chunk of that caucus was elected on the backs of tossing out this law.

As for the polling of Medicare, I'm calling bs. I would love to see that data, but polling back then was used in elections and rarely in anything else. That's why we don't even have right track/wrong track data from back then for the most part. I'm sure someone interpreted some political poll to say gosh this was unpopular, but the guy's popularity jumped x amount therefore everyone loves the policy, but it would be total bs.

The whole notion of "its law passed by house and senate and signed by the presiedent, deal with it" didn't apply to dems over the bush era tax reforms or dont ask dont tell (a hugely popular law within the military) why should it apply to this? A law that even the man who penned it into law is changing and delaying himself (unconstitutionally, might I add) because it is not working out how it was planned...

"Look, these were the guys [Obama, Reid, Pelosi] who thought sequestration was a great win for them and who made 85 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent. The Bush tax cuts were an upper hand he could have used to control the country for years. If he would have extended it for a year we’d be talking about whether there should be a tax increase right now. You shouldn’t spend too much time thinking you’re dealing with political geniuses here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...raffic-and-wandered-away/

Ha, such an astute point. By the way, Norquist attacks Cruz saying hung House Republicans out to dry versus giving them leverage with a meaningful strategy to extract entitlement reforms.

THIS. RIGHT HERE.

A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN *SHOULD* BE A MAJOR YAWNER! HELL, BACK WHEN THE COUNTRY WAS YOUNG AND FULL OF LIBERTY-MINDED PEOPLE AND GOVERNING WAS A DUTY RATHER THAN A CAREER, THE ISSUE WAS THAT THEY COULDN'T GET CONGRESS TO CONVENE (OF COURSE, TRAVEL WAS A BIT TOUGHER BACK THEN, TOO, TO BE FAIR)

I FIND IT DELICIOUSLY IRONIC THAT THE CURRENT DEMONSTRATION OF THE ABILITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO PARALYZE ITSELF COMES AS A RESULT OF A DEBATE OVER WHERE WE AS A PEOPLE WANT TO GIVE THAT VERY SAME GOVERNMENT MORE OF A ROLE IN OUR HEALTH CARE!!?!? IF AMERICANS WOULD STOP MAKING THEMSELVES DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO BE APOPLECTIC WHEN IT "SHUTS DOWN!"


HA!

BILL
CHIEF OF BEING FOR SOME REASON STILL COMPELLED TO TYPE WORDS THAT WILL FALL ON DEAF EYES FOR 99% OF THE IDEOLOGUES WHO READ IT
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

The Supreme Court has affirmed parts of Obamacare and struck down other parts. For instance a number of Americans won't qualify for subsidies despite being very poor because the US Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government could not blackmail the states into expanding their medicaid coverage. Which brings up another point, they upheld the individual mandate as a tax (saying that it was otherwise unconstitutional); unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not hear arguments on the fact that this revenue bill originated in the US Senate and thus did not make a ruling on that. Now the President will argue that Obamacare originated in the House as a bill to provide for veterans housing and it was stripped in the Senate and then sent back to the House. This however, essentially blackmailed representatives and denied Americans their equal representation in the US House of Representatives. If the Supreme Court follows that line of logic, they will be forced to conclude that Obamacare originated in the Senate when it gets back to the Supreme Court. That's the complicated part to prove, but once that's proven it becomes very easy to prove the law unconstitutional:

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 states, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

When does this make it's way to the Supreme Court? First, someone has to have standing to sue...they must have been impacted by the individual mandate and probably been forced to pay the individual mandate tax. The tax makes it a revenue bill, paying it gives someone standing to sue. This kind of makes me uncertain as to whether or not Republicans should be trying to stop the individual mandate because this could very well be the quickest way to get rid of Obamacare entirely.



Republicans won the House of Representatives in the election after Obamacare was passed. They still control the House. Clearly Americans want compromise...that's why we didn't one party control even in the most recent election. Though for the record, America is first and foremost a federal republic and only after that is America a representative democracy. This was put into place to protect against the tyranny of the majority and I would defy you to say that a majority of Americans don't want the individual mandate delayed since so many other entities including the congress are getting waivers on Obamacare.



a) Americans still left the Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, so you would think the Democrats and President Obama would get the idea that Americans want them to compromise.
b) We'll see what the Supreme Court says when the law makes its way back to the Supreme Court and it is going to go back. Constitutionality remains an open question. The Supreme Court's own ruling allowing the individual mandate instead of just striking that part of the law down could very well force them to strike the whole law down.
c) The Republican run House of Representatives sent two budgets to the Democratic run Senate. In the second, they toned down their efforts and upped their ante to make a budget deal. What did the Democrats do? After the first budget, they stripped the budget of the provision to defund Obamacare and sent it back. After the second budget, they didn't do anything. Republicans plainly made an effort to get a budget and Democrats did nothing to try to reach a deal. They didn't even offer the Republicans a carrot on reducing the deficit. They didn't do anything but say that they're not going to negotiate. Actions speak louder than words. The Democrats' actions are saying exactly what their words are, "We're not going to negotiate!" The Republicans' actions are saying, "We are negotiating the best we can with our colleagues." One party is negotiating through their actions and the other is shutting down the government through their inaction. Anarchy is refusing to negotiate in any way, shape, or form to pass a budget. That's really all there is to the government shutdown.

d) See point "c". I have clearly shown that the Democrats are the party that refuses to negotiate, so who's holding the government hostage again? I'm confused because it doesn't make sense to say that the party that's actually negotiating is holding the government hostage and that's what you're saying. I have to conclude that you're completely wrong on this point.

TO THE POINT THAT I HAVE SEEN RAISED HERE, AND ELSEWHERE, ABOUT HOW OBAMACARE IS "SETTLED LAW" AND SOMEHOW THAT MEANS THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS SHOULD JUST ACQUIESCE, THIS ARGUMENT IS NONSENSICAL. I RECOMMEND READING THE FOLLOWING FOR AN INTERESTING (ALBEIT FROM A PARTISAN SOURCE) PERSPECTIVE:

from http://soundpolitics.com/archives/015944.html

As an added observation, Republicans would likely control the Senate if not for the ridiculous candidates put forward and they insane things they say (IN, MO, DE, ND ME, WV, CO). If you look at the Senate map, it should nearly always come up with a red tinge, yet it doesn't because the primary system finds some unique way to put the worst GOP candidates forward. I've heard a few very connected donors say about the NRSC, three strikes and you're out in reference to whether they make any gains this cycle or not.

Who wants to bet on when the shutdown ends?

There's no way of knowing but with all the debt we have, it might take months. Last time it happened it lasted 27 days and the country was not in near the amount of debt. America has 16 Trillion in debt according to the media, but who can always trust the media right? I believe this government shutdown is something that's going to be very long term. I Believe that the shutdown won't let up until next year at the very least.

We are mincing words here. I said it wasn't the only deciding factor and in many races it wasn't even the main issue. I didn't say it "wasn't a major factor". There were many major factors, and it was one of them.

And the later idea put forward that Americans want a divided government is crazy. I haven't met anyone yet who says "yep, I voted the Dems in the Senate and the Reps in the House because I wanted to make sure the gov't was divided!"

The reason the house is majority republican and the Senate is not has a lot more to do with House Rep district maps vs. Senate statewide elections and, as someone else mentioned, the candidates put forward. It is not Americans "wanting" opposing parties in the two chambers.

On the "settled law" thing - first, there will certainly (as Angel1 pointed out) be more challenges to the law in court. Second, laws can be changed. The philosophical argument here is twofold: whether a CR or a debt limit bill is the proper venue to attempt to make a change in law; and whether the right way to attempt a change in law is the defund it. It makes more sense to attack the law head on, and vote to repeal it. The House did that, and failed... 40+ times? That is where the definition of crazy comes from.

Other law repeals cited herein were not "repealed" or "defunded" in such a process critical to the actual functioning of our government.

Finally, a few folks seem to believe the federal shutdown has little or no impact. You could not be further from the truth. The impact grows daily. There was a great story on NPR this afternoon about CDC disease outbreak monitoring teams - 75% of which are furloughed and an interview on how they would detect, much less handle, a typical outbreak such as we had over the Summer. That is just 1 example from 1 agency.

I've seen and heard far too many idiots who assume that because they don't personally "speak" to Mr. Government everyday about their problems that the government is useless and isn't doing anything. That is BS. We are NOT better off without the FDA, EPA, FCC, SEC and countless other agencies that serve the public good and keep the private sector in check from destroying itself with capitalist greed, negligent apathy or problems simply too complex to detect early without proactive oversight.

To assert otherwise shows an extreme naivete and a serious insult to men and women who daily work to serve the public good and who are currently not getting paid.

Xinhuan: next week.

Syko: WTF does our debt level have to do with the length of the shutdown?

http://gawker.com/...ze-for-shutdow-1440577868

yea, because we cannot possibly take care of ourselves and cannot possibly get a little sick for a couple days and live through it without the govt.

contrary to popular belief people DID survive in this country prior to the agencies you listed, and to claim that the FDA is protecting us, please look up MONSANTO, TYSON , CONAgra, then look up FDA personnel and rulings, and connect the dots....the FDA is just as shady as "weapon of mass destruction"




Additionally, no other administration could screw this govt shut down up anymore than the current one.

They are spending MORE money on barricading and policing the national parks during this shutdown than they do policing and guarding them while they are open. There were more guards at the WWII memorial guarding it from WWII veterans than there were at our embassy in a hostile country. On top of that they have attempted to shut down numerous parks that they have no jurors diction to shut down, privately owned and operated parks that will continue to stay open. To say that the NPS shutdowns are anything but politically motivated is naive.


This president is not leading, he is adding to the division. As much as I didn't agree with his policies, Clinton lead and he did a great job of it. He brought both parties together in times like this and lead. Bush Sr lead. He worked with both branches and made them work together. Hell, even Jr did a decent job of it even after the dems took the senate in 2006.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with naive.

Our world is evolving, in case you didn't notice. You cannot say "well, there was no FDA back in the thirteen colonies so we clearly don't need one now" (I'm exaggerating for emphasis, in case you can't tell). The existence of companies you listed is exactly why we need oversight. If you don't like those companies today, you REALLY wouldn't like them without any regulation, quality control or oversight.

Oh, a drug or tainted food killed thousands? Screw a recall, that would cost money. Let's just make/sell more and cover it up with PR.

Do you have any idea what chaos would ensue without regulation of wireless frequencies? There goes your Wi-Fi. Leave it up to the states? Oh great, now your cell phone works in one state but not another because they regulate the frequencies differently. The states will work together peacefully? Yeah, that's working well with Common Core - a state-led cooperative initiative.

And let's get rid of the EPA, right? I mean we didn't need it back at the start of the industrial era, right? Companies will all do the right thing and understand the impact of their actions on neighboring properties, states, water/air supplies, etc. We can all just trust each other to agree on what is best.



Oh, the photo-op bandwagon... having fun there too, eh? Screw the Centers for Disease Control, this is about the WWII Memorial!!! Let's march on the memorial!!!

Guess what, we live in a nation of LAWS. When a LAW is broken, there is a response. Those vets broke the law. More security was added. The NPS and other federal agencies have had contingency plans in place for a government shutdown for years. Everyone knew (and was told on the radio) that government parks would be shutdown. Some people chose to break the law and trespass. That escalated security issues which moved some people (guards) back into the essential category. The NPS is being flat-out manipulated so someone can redirect blame. Oh, you don't like the failure of Congress? Its the National Park Service's fault!!! Look at them!!! Point the camera over there!!! Roll out the sound bites!!!

Dude, you completely fell for it.

Ticket splitting is quite real. It may not make sense to, but trust me if you do private polling and drop big money in several tossup districsts, you will encounter a significant amount of it. I would still argue Obamacare was a major part of the 2010 elections, but sure, there were certainly other elements. Polling wise the two big items were jobs and Obamacare.

Anyway, the reason I brought up 2010 before was because the defense was put out there that 2012 was a referendum election on Obamacare. It's hard to argueu 2012 was a referendum, but somehow 2010 wasn't.

As for venues, one can certainly debate it. Of course it's not the first or likely last time the CR or a budget has been a focal point of major disagreement.

Yes, there are critical functions performed by government. There are also major flaws. Did NPR run a story on use it or lose it? It's got to be one of the biggest scams out there and typically accounts for nearly 5-9% of every federal agency's budget. Of course in the end of the day, discretionary domestic spending has nothing against defense and entitlements.

What you're circling on is the problem of using a leverage point to address the big picture items (appears to be Boehner's tactic that Ted Cruz semi-hijacked). Saying it's the wrong approach. Some would argue that every other approach has failed. I mean take a look at what happened to poor Ron Wyden when he dared to agree with Paul Ryan--totally trashed by his own party. The point being that the music will stop and the longer we wait, the more painful it becomes. If Boehner, et al were able to accomplish significant structure reforms from all of this, then I would consider it well worthwhile.

Mil was pay'd and for OCT 1st never was a question as to them being pay'd only will it come to play will be when we hit the debt ceiling...
non essential personnel , it is actually illegal for them to be working, and that includes those who just feel like doing it out of the kindness of their heart.

come about the 17th is when trouble begins. hope those for fluff for brains can take those heads out of their asses by then.

While still not technically paid, I heard from a few folks that the House is going to drop a bill either this weekend or early next week to gurantee backpay to all those furloughed. Of course, who knows where that goes given all the other mini-CRs were shot down.

The word on the street is they won't allow the debt ceiling to become an issue unless the President says he won't sign a debt ceiling increase without a CR (doubtful, but possible in the high stakes brinkmanship games). The question is less if the debt ceiling will be extended, it's for how long (much).

Debt has everything to do with the shutdown you retard, its the reason the government shutdown in the first place. It means that the government will have to come up with a budget that is going to allow us to pay off our debt. The more money that's owed the longer its going to be too come up with an effective plan to pay it all off.

you poor poor person. you are too simple minded to figure it out arnt you?

It really doesn't have anything to do with the shutdown. We're not in a government shutdown because we went too much into debt or because we're running a deficit. We're in a shutdown because Congress (as a whole) has chosen not to pass a budget. That's the simple answer.

They could put forth a budget that includes more deficit spending (therefore driving up the debt) and the shutdown would stop. In fact, that's almost definitely what will happen, as we are cutting out deficits the past few years, but we're still running a deficit.

Yes but a budget includes paying off debt! Yes, how much can be spent, so you know how much you have to pay off debt.

Mak's Debt Payment Plan That Will Lead to WWIII:
1. Only pay back domestically owned debt
2. Park a few carrier groups off of China's coast
3. Ask them if they have a problem with not getting paid back

The national government doesn't have to be constrained by paying off debt.

The reason we have a national debt is because we take investments from other countries and even our own citizens (when you buy savings bonds, you're actually investing in the United States).

We're not going to be paying down the debt this year. We're going to be running a deficit (accruing MORE debt). If your point is something other than this, then I'm missing what you're trying to get at. But again, if you think paying down our debt is a requirement for the government to start working again, then you simply are mistaken on how this all works.

Twain I am looking at the long term, the budget isn't for the remainder of the year, it will last years, how long? I am not sure. I agree we will have to run a deficit for sometime. If Clinton could leave this nation in a surplus, I don't see why it cant happen again.

Correct, just substitute the word appropriations for budget. Technically both chambers passed "budgets" this year, which is inside-the-beltway parlance for spending policy documents (guidance), not actual appropriations. (Think Ryan Budget).

But your point is correct. The shutdown is triggered by a failure to pass adequate appropriations.