22 thoughts on “The Mother Of All Trainwrecks”

    1. The ACA (Heathcare.gov) is funded by mandatory spending, so it isn’t affected.

      It’s all shutdown theater brought to by Obama, who wanted this all along.

      The rules that govern what is and isn’t closed in a shutdown were made long before Obama came to D.C. Your paranoia is showing.

      1. The rules that govern what is and isn’t closed in a shutdown were made long before Obama came to D.C.

        If Obama is following the rules, then I ask again, why is BLS.gov up and NCES.ed.gov is down? Your ignorance is showing.

        1. why is BLS.gov up and NCES.ed.gov is down?

          BLS.gov is up, but not being updated during the shutdown. Apparently departments have some flexibility about whether to freeze their sites or take the content offline entirely. It’s fascinating that you can discern a political motive in that distinction.

      2. Listening to Obama and yourself we are led to believe that all spending is mandatory.

        They are spending more money on manpower and resources closing monuments than they would if they left them open.

        1. we are led to believe that all spending is mandatory.

          “Mandatory” in this case has a specific, technical meaning.

          They are spending more money on manpower and resources closing monuments than they would if they left them open.

          That could well be. But the law — in place for decades — says that they have to be closed, even when it perversely drives up costs.

          1. ““Mandatory” in this case has a specific, technical meaning.”

            Uhh, sorry for bringing up your past positions. IMO, you should write it like this. “There is mandatory spending and MANDATORY spending” This way we all know you are just grandstanding and not making a serious argument based on your ideals.

            Last week you were all, “Republicans need to work with Obama and the Democrats to make Obamacare better.” And when given the opportunity to work together and make Obamacare better by getting rid of the medical device tax its, “No compromise. No negotiating. Shut it down!”

            Getting a CR and getting rid of the medical device tax is win/win for Democrats and Republicans but Obama and the Democrats feel a shutdown is better for their party politics. Hmm and I thought Obama has been saying party before country was the wrong thing to do.

          2. But the law — in place for decades

            Surely you can point to this law you speak of. I’d like to read how the NCES is forced to turn off its servers, but BLS is kept up and running. You claim the law allows for this, so us the law.

          3. And when given the opportunity to work together and make Obamacare better by getting rid of the medical device tax its, “No compromise. No negotiating. Shut it down!”

            The Dems say they’re happy to negotiate on the device tax, but not under threat of shutting the government down. There’s no earthly reason to link the two.

            Getting a CR and getting rid of the medical device tax is win/win for Democrats and Republicans but Obama and the Democrats feel a shutdown is better for their party politics.

            If a shutdown is better for the Dems then why did they pass a CR in the Senate? Why is it Boehner who won’t even bring the CR up for a vote?

          4. Surely you can point to this law you speak of.

            The law in question is the Antideficiency Act, originally passed in 1884 and amended since then. The rules for shutdowns are largely based on opinions issued by the Attorney General in the 80s. For more information, see this history of government shutdowns.

            I doubt the law goes into detail about whether government departments have to take down websites, or just stop updating them. For that matter, it probably doesn’t detail whether the doors to closed offices have to be shuttered or just locked. I’m guessing that’s up to individual department heads.

          5. For more detail that might explain why bls.gov is up while nces.ed.gov is shuttered, you can read the shutdown plans from the Departments of Labor and Education.

            Of note from the Labor plan:

            “… we propose to continue a minimal range of public information, web/social media and press support activities …. These activities would be in support of otherwise authorized activities during the funding lapse …. The minimal staffing for these activities would be eight FTE ….”

          6. I doubt the law goes into detail about whether government departments have to take down websites, or just stop updating them.

            I doubt it too, yet you keep making the claim that they do.

  2. Does anyone besides me feel that with the coming of Obamacare, something in the soul of the USA died? That is, does anyone here who values their liberty feel that way? State-humpers such as Jim and dcguy needn’t respond. Sado-masochistic statists love serfdom, to inflict on others as well as on themselves. I call them the New Tories, and keep thinking of what Samuel Adams said to the Tories of his day:

    “If ye love wealth [especially plundered wealth, I would say]–including wealth plundered to pay for your medical care] better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    I know State-humpers find the term “State-humper” and such insulting; but it is a well-known fact that to be respected by others you have to respect one’s self, and I cannot see how anyone who doesn’t value liberty–not even their own–could have any self-respect.

      1. Why not, Jim? As I said, if someone doesn;’t respect themselves to value their own liberty, why should I respect him? Besides, insulting is no where in the same category of objectionable things as putting a gun to someone’s head, the way State-humpers do.

        1. someone doesn;’t respect themselves to value their own liberty, why should I respect him?

          Perhaps because you’d like others to respect you, even when they disagree with your choices?

          Besides, insulting is no where in the same category of objectionable things as putting a gun to someone’s head

          You’re right, insults are far from the worst thing in the world. But still, what do you gain by their use?

          1. I don’t need the respect of people who advocate coercion.

            Besides, what’s so insulting? You obviously love the State. Love it so much, in fact, you can’t get enough of it. You want it to run your life, and the lives of others. Obviously the humping part is metaphorical; but it’s like if you told a heterosexual male (like me), “You’re a woman-shtupper.” My reaction would be, “Yeah–so?” I wouldn”t find it insulting.

          2. You obviously love the State. Love it so much, in fact, you can’t get enough of it. You want it to run your life, and the lives of others.

            I think government is a useful invention, and that it can and often does make life better. I also think it creates problems and hazards. I can definitely “get enough of it”. I don’t want it to run anyone’s life.

            I think all these same things about my computer, too, and my car. But it’d be ridiculous and insulting to say that I want to hump my computer or car, and it’s ridiculous and insulting to say that I want to hump the state.

            “You’re a woman-shtupper.” My reaction would be, “Yeah–so?” I wouldn”t find it insulting.

            It isn’t insulting because you literally want to have sex with women. But imagine that you find cars to be valuable, useful inventions. Does that mean people should feel free to call you a car-humper?

      2. Jim

        Don’t worry, the commenters launch into fits of the vapors over the label
        “Teabagger” an eponymous name,the the teabaggers foisted upon themselves.

        DN

  3. Well, in public opinion, the shutdown appears to me to be playing out withoutgiving an advantage to anyone. The people who supported Obama, still do. The people who supported the Republicans, still do. And those who did neither are still fence-sitting for the moment. In the link above, the Reason author spins this as being “less risky” than the shutdown with Clinton was at a similar phase.

    1. The 8 shutdowns during the Reagan Administration by the Democrat House didn’t seem to be a major deal either. I’m sure that factored into Reid’s decision to shut things down.

Comments are closed.