http://abcnews.go.com/...-obamacare-delay-20409805

http://www.foxnews.com/...ocrat-led-senate-no-show/

What could this mean?

Does this mean that football season is over? I'm gonna be pissed! You will not ruin the Arizona Cardinals going to the superbowl! fluff you Government!

no Syko, the government has no relation to the Arizona cardinals, they will not make it because they suck, they have NOTHING to do with the govt

That's the batflufftingly insanest thing i've ever heard. The Arizona Cardinals will NEVER EVER go to the superbowl.

the retard is strong with this one

In all fairness, they already went once.

yeah, because they benefited from Jake Delhome having a career meltdown on his birthday.

Haha Delhomme was garbage anyway... worst QB they faced that post-season. Plus Fitz put up 150+ and a TD.

doesnt change the fact he gave you 6 turnovers...

The gov already stopped paying soldiers. My little bro is at fort hood tx. I had to send him cash so he could live.

Wow, that's scary, if I don't get paid, I don't work.

congress still gets paid tho


wtf

they are still funding jobs that they deem too important not too so I guess they think they are important. "meat usda inspectors", air traffic controllers and some other jobs will be funded

As long as the government is shutdown... they can't make Terrible Bills and other things to hurt the Economy.. only thing I don't like about it... the Troops don't get paid while they dodge death over in Afganistan.

Active military will still be paid. It wasn't automatic like the politicians, but it got taken care of.

<--- active duty and I got paid right on time.

You wouldnt have won if my team hadnt of sucked so much! Great excuse there Ford.

The government has officially shutdown.. goodbye America! Yeahhhh no moreee government!!!!!!! I do what I want now!

You guys really did fluff up :)

they did five years ago, gains.

i say let them shut it down.

do they still pay their debt right now? like.. treasury bonds? or would they default?

+no time to google search the answer :P

http://youtu.be/wz-PtEJEaqY

True democracy at work, citizens first every time....

cnn.com:

"GAME OVER" in font size 999

Apparently he needs to be active duty to continue getting paid.

http://swampland.time.com/...itary-as-shutdown-begins/

As soon as congress sent the measure to keep paying any military he signed it. Maybe you should write to your representatives and ask them to pull their head out of their asses and get your brother paid?

That's not true. Active Duty Military are being paid. That was sent to the President last night and he signed it.

No, those people ("essential personnel") are still expected to show up for work, but they will not be paid or funded. Presuming the President signs it, the only people being paid are military and some security outlined in the only CR that passed.

The shut down really doesn't trouble me that much. It's the debt ceiling issue that I'm worried about.

Here you go, all explained:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...nment-shutdown-will-work/

Note also that the folks working now without pay (essential) will get retroactive pay once funding is restored. Its the folks not working (non-essential) who lose out.

Interesting political ones from the above:

Immigration: The Department of Homeland Security will no longer operate its E-Verify program, which means that businesses will not be able to check on the legal immigration status of prospective employees during the shutdown.

The Environmental Protection Agency will close down almost entirely during a shutdown, save for operations around Superfund sites. Many of the Labor Department's regulatory offices will close, including the Wage and Hour Division and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (The Mine Safety and Health Administration will, however, stay open.)

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees the vast U.S. derivatives market, will largely shut down. A few financial regulators, however, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, will remain open.

The government estimates that roughly 800,000 federal workers will get sent home if the government shuts down.

That leaves about 1.3 million "essential" federal workers, 1.4 million active-duty military members, 500,000 Postal Service workers, and other employees in independently-funded agencies who will continue working.

How often has the government shut down before?

Since 1976, there have been 17 different government shutdowns. The longest came in 1995-'96 and lasted 21 days, as Bill Clinton wrangled with congressional Republicans over budget matters.

But there were also six shutdowns in the 1970s, all lasting longer than eight days, and there was even a one-day shutdown in 1982 when Congress couldn't agree on funding for Nicaraguan Contras.

Dept by dept: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...epartment-impact/?hpid=z1

Best functioning federal government we've had in years. *claps*

In all honesty, I hope the Republicans stay strong and keep the shutdown until Obama comes to the negotiating table. Painful, yes, but the president and his Democratic cohorts must be forced to recognize that they do have to negotiate. They don't control all of the US Government and that's because a majority of Americans chose to strip them of their control of the US House of Representatives.

This shutdown is the fault of President Obama and the Democrats. That's all there is to it. The Senate Democrats voted twice to shut the government down. Their choice and they must make the choice to compromise before this shutdown can conclude.

I would say neither side is compromising and that is why it is a deadlock. Shows some poor leadership by all parties.

Sorry, but I dont agree that a government party should be holding the country hostage just so that they can get what they want ... ie getting rid of Obamacare.

So dont blame the President or even the Democrats ... because frankly if they give in once, the Republicans might as well be given free reign to do whatever they want or they will "take their ball and go home cause they dont want to play anymore" but will still pick up their paychecks, unlike many who were told not to come into work today.

They are all hurting the American people with this bullfluff. And this shutdown today is only a small slice of what is going to happen later in the month.

Bottom line ... they say do what we want or shut down the government. Shut it the fluff down then and get people in there that will actually accomplish something besides bickering. All they are accomplishing now is destroying progress that the economy has made.

I am just so sick of this fluff.

Angel1, you are incorrect. Not just about whose fault the shutdown is, but in your beliefs if you claim to be a conservative.

If you claim to be someone who supports the constitution (and by extension, America), how can you believe that holding up a law's implementation after it was passed -- and affirmed by the supreme court -- just because you don't like it is an OK thing to do? This debate isn't a negotiation point. This is funding the damn government to continue functioning.

I don't know wtf you're talking about re: "majority of americans". You're just pulling words out of your ass. The polling states that a MAJORITY of Americans WANT Oabamacare to go into effect as an incremental step toward a better healthcare system. A MAJORITY of Americans feel that this government shutdown isn't what they want. A MAJORITY of Americans feel that this is on the Republicans and not Obama or the Democrats. This was the polling as recently as last night when I watched both Canadian and American news on the topic.

If you want to talk about the last time an election was held, a majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama. A majority of Americans voted for Democratic senators. In the House, the Democrats gained seats. The Republicans lost and lost badly, mainly because of the kind of vitriol and obstructionism that they showed during Obama's first term. Holding secure right-leaning seats in gerrymandered districts is about all the Republicans did in 2012.

So, to summarize:
a) Republicans lost the last election, which they claimed was a referendum on Obama and Obamacare. They lost seats in both chambers of congress and were trounced nationally by Obama. As John McCain said "there are consequences to losing elections" so you'd think it's time to stop being obstructionist.
b) The supreme court affirmed the law as constitutional, meaning that by not funding it, Republicans aren't as fond of following the constitution as they claim to be.
c) Republicans are basically becoming anarchist because of a small wing of their party, and the party seems fine with that.
d) Only one party holds the country hostage when it doesn't get it's way, and that party is the Republicans.

Anyway, thanks for making our crappy Canadian government look like a bunch of all-stars...

Obamacare=Welfare

+1 Pang!

Yeah, Pang pretty much nailed it. What's more, we don't actually know how the House would respond / vote to a clean CR because the House *leadership* won't allow it to come to the floor for a vote.

There is a significant portion of the Republican caucus that believe the House is taking the wrong strategy and should pass a clean CR from the Senate. Add those to the Democrats and a *majority* of the elected members of the House would vote for a clean CR. The only way to avoid that is to prevent that clean CR from ever reaching the floor of the House for an up/down vote.

Anyone who supports the Cardinals = sport welfare.

For Pang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr_y_oaLHcc

If the GOP thought that 2012 stung, I can't wait for the cakewalk that the Democrats will have in 2016.

I won't be surprised if/when mass republican suicide parties happen when another Clinton takes office in 2016.

Trife:

http://www.270towin.com/2014-senate-election/
http://www.270towin.com/2014-house-election/

Clinton/Clinton, 2016!!!!

First mom+daughter ticket!

Most welfare states spend like 50% less on public health than the combined population of the US spends on doctors, medicine and whatnot.

While public health services will feel like crap, they actually save you money. Which you (the consumer/tax payer) can then use for bigger cars, more beer and erm, more beer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

And thus PILF and VPILF were coined

Actually you're way off base here.

In the 2012, elections there were 122,346,020 total votes cast for the House of Representatives nationwide. Of those 122,346,020 votes, Republicans can not claim a majority or even a plurality of the votes were cast for their party. In fact, neither the D or R got a majority of the votes. However, the D did get the plurality of votes; but thanks to the beauty that is gerrymandering the Republicans are able to take limited government to the extreme and do absolutely nothing.

Don't believe me, look it up. http://clerk.house.gov/...tionInfo/2012election.pdf

Look, I think limited government sounds good and all. And I also believe that there is excessive government spending on all types of things. But y'all take every good idea and push it to the extreme.

This is not a zero-sum game; these are peoples livelihoods we are talking about. Shutting down the government and pushing for the government to default on our debt, is ridiculous and hurts the entire US economy.

I do blame the President and Senate Democrats as well. Last week, Obama cancelled a meeting with Boehner to discuss a possible compromise (he could tell him nothing on Obamacare if he wanted, but at least meet) and yet he had time for a round of golf on Saturday.

Today, the Senate refused to appoint negotiaters to a conference committee. How else are they going to compromise, by simply passing and rejecting the same bills over and over? The point of conference committee IS TO NEGOTIATE THE DIFFERENCES!!

Are some on the right being obstinate regarding Obamacare? Yes, most definitely. And if I were the Dems, I probably would only accept the Medical Devices tax (it has a majority support on both sides of the aisle save for the President). However, to start a negotiation requires actually talking to the other person (the President's most serious attempt was a 11th hour 59th minute call to Boehner for 10 minutes, yesterday) rather than simply running to the cameras crying unfair.

That's 122 million for the Presidential race. The Congressional number is close to 60 million (I think 56, but would have to double check).

You should have double checked before making your post =p

Maybe I should give page numbers as references.

House total votes: pg. 75.
Presidential total votes: pg. 72

House:
Rep total votes: 57,622,827
Dem total votes: 59,214,910

Those opposing the implementation (or parts of it) ran on repealing and replacing the law. It's hard to argue that wasn't a major driver in the 2010 election cycle. So most of those opposing it are really doing exactly what they said they would do. Your point of Supreme Court affirmation or legal passage is sort of moot given prohibition was also upheld and passed as a law (amendment).

The question isn't about should elected officials oppose something, it's how should they oppose it. The power of the purse (Appropriations Clause) is left to Conrgess by the Constitution. So yes, it is effectively their power, whether you or I like it or not. It's a question of political decorum--is it something worth doing that to, that's really being asked.

I tend to agree it's not the right spot for the fight. At the same time, you forget the President unilaterally ignored his own law--you know, the one he signed into law, was upheld by the Supreme Court, and Congress passed--to delay the employer mandate. Where's your outrage?


As nicely as I can put it, you're wrong. You can track the polling data on the subject here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...ealth_care_plan-1130.html


By the same token logic, the Republicans won, and won significantly, on opposing Obamacare. What's your point? That people voted based on a plethura of issues and not just one...or on just one issue?



A) They also won an election based on opposing Obamacare.
B) The Supreme Court also found the Appropriations Clause says Congress gets to choose what to fund and what not to fund, but they have to produce a written report of incomes and expenditures "from time to time." The Supreme Court simply upheld the law's validity against challenges, namely that it complied with the ability to tax. They didn't take an opinion toward the law one way or the other.
C) Would not disagree that the Tea Party element has significantly altered government and really hamstrung potential at bipartisan compromises. (I don't know if I would use the same hyperbolic language, but the broader point is valid).
D) So, about President Obama cancelling his meeting with Boehner to discuss this, the Senate Democrats refusing to appoint Conference Committee negotiators, or the President's unilateral decision to delay something "upheld by the Supreme Court and passed by Congress" because he said so.... oh right, it's all the Republicans and their my way or the highway attitude. *Shrugs*.

I stand corrected.

Why do they have to continually turn a non-issue into a massive fiasco every godamned year. We shouldn't ever be fluffing around with raising the debt ceiling, for one.

http://www.slate.com/...a_report_on_it_if_it.html

No, the republicans did not win "an election based on opposing Obamacare". They won a number of small local elections in gerrymandered districts of the ones that were up for grabs to gain just enough seats in the House to take control of the House. Those are not at all the same thing.




Actually, that is a great example of the Administration working with stakeholders to compromise and change the implementation to make it simpler and more effective -- done without a gun to their heads on funding the government. AMAZING... you can actually work with and obtain compromise from the Administration without the extreme right-wing's political games?!?!? Who knew??!!?

http://www.treasury.gov/...l-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx



Yeah, that's an easy one to agree on.



Its really simple. The President has met with Boehner many times on many issues. They have even reached agreements in the past. The Senate has done the same. The point here is that a Continuing Resolution to fund the government IS NOT THE PLACE for that meeting on the Affordable Care Act.

and this is why fixed term elections in general can be bad. In many democracies, if you cannot pass/negotiate a budget you have to fold and call an election (is more than likely going to happen where I live this spring), which tends not to work in the powers that be's favor.

Also look on the bright side: the US gov't is saving money by doing this:P

What polls show Americans favor ACA?

a) Yes Democrats won the election, does this mean the Republicans lay down and let them do what they want?

b) The supreme court upheld 1 part of the law, by technicality. Oddly, the 1 part of the law that they affirmed was the 1 part of the law that the administration had to flat out lie and deceive the American people about, to garner even a little support from across the aisle, still today he calls it a fine because he knows how unpopular it is to call it a tax. (which they hinged on to get it through the courts)

c) You give the tea party much more credit than they deserve as a congressional voting caucus, They were elected to do precisely what they are doing by their constituents and no, it isn't not anarchy. Furthermore, the Tea Party currently doesn't have the votes in either chamber to make a difference on any voting outcome. To put the blame on them is a cop out for not having enough support within the party outside of them or an unwillingness to work across the aisle. They are simply there to change the conversation, and as much as folks despise them, they have been VERY effective in changing the conversation.

d) The country is not being held hostage, the central government is. Far from the same thing. Additionally, this is not the end of the world and in fact this is how the government is designed to work. When the folks in Washington get too partisan, and too gridlocked, it is designed to stop in its tracks until negotiations happen.



September 30 to October 11, 1976 (10 days)
September 30 to October 13, 1977 (12 days)
October 31 to November 9, 1977 (8 days)
November 30 to December 9, 1977 (8 days)
September 30 to October 18, 1978 (18 days
September 30 to October 12, 1979 (11 days)
November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days)
September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day)
December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days)
November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days)
September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days)
October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day)
October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day)
December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day)
October 5 to October 9, 1990 (3 days)
November 13 to November 19, 1995 (5 days)
December 5, 1995 to January 6, 1996 (21 days)

This has happened before, and it will happen again.

The government was designed specifically to hold each other in check and this is what is happening. The central government was never intended to have such a vast expansion that it would be devastating. Local and State governments will operate as is and we WILL survive this and contrary to what they have been saying for months leading up to this; the government shutdown, as well a refusal to raise the debt limit will NOT cause us to default. That is pure fear mongering and a complete lie. The funds are there to pay debts, if our debts are not paid it is because the White House chose to not appropriate them properly. Similar to his handling of the sequester.