72 thoughts on “Blame The Republicans”

  1. If two sides are deadlocked, and one side is demanding concessions while the other isn’t, it’s pretty easy to tell which side is to blame for the standoff.

      1. Not quite true. The Republicans have been demanding concessions, the Democrats have just been making Demands. “Raise the Debt Limit! We don’t negotiate with Terrorists!”. So Jim is correct, just not the way he wanted to be. The Democrats are clearly to blame for the standoff, obviously because they want the Take, but not the Give……

      3. Soon, Rand, Jim will sheepishly declare he wasn’t really making an argument.

        Of course when one house of Congress legally votes a bill in and passes it to the other house, and the other house (the Senate for those of you who have trouble keeping up) demands they change the bill….that’s demanding a concession.

        Only witless dweebs and kool-aid addicted adle-brained lefties cannot see that.

        1. demands they change the bill….that’s demanding a concession

          The Senate didn’t demand that the House change a bill, the Senate passed and sent back a CR bill for the House’s consideration. What concession is that demanding? It isn’t a concession for the House to hold a vote on a Senate bill. It isn’t a concession for the House to accept a CR funding number that the House itself proposed. Where’s the concession?

          H: We should fund the government at $988B
          S: OK, let’s fund the government at $988B
          H: Also, you have to give me something else: defund the ACA, or delay the ACA, or delay the ACA individual mandate
          S: I don’t have the votes for any of those things, let’s just fund the government
          H: You have to give me something else, or I won’t vote on funding the government

          Funding the government is something that both sides need to happen. It isn’t a concession to one side.

        2. The Senate (and the White House) demanded that the House pass the Senate’s version of the bill as the Senate had amended it. Such a demand was a demand for a concession from the House.

          This isn’t Wonderland.

          1. was a demand for a concession

            So the “concession” is passing a clean CR that funds the government at the level chosen by the GOP? How could that possibly be a concession to the Democrats? The Republicans already want to pass a funding bill at that level — I take them at their word that they don’t intend to have the government shut down forever.

            Agreeing to something that you already want and intend to do is not a concession. The Republicans are asking the Democrats to give up pieces of Obamacare; the Democrats aren’t asking the Republicans to give up anything.

          2. No, the concession is not defunding or delaying ObamaCare, and not requiring Congress and the administration to have to eat their own ObamaCare dogfood.

          3. the concession is not defunding or delaying ObamaCare

            Now we really are in Wonderland. “Not doing X” is only a concession if the person making the concession has the desire and power to do X. The Republicans don’t have the power to unilaterally defund Obmacare (or Medicare, or Social Security, or Medicaid, etc.) — doing so requires the assent of the Senate and President (or a veto override). The Democrats aren’t demanding that concession because it isn’t in the Republicans’ power to deliver it.

            So again, what are the Democrats asking the Republicans to give up? Remember that they can only give up something they have to give.

          4. And the White House and the Senate can’t “unilaterally” do anything either. This argument has grown beyond absurdity. In the real world, not Planet Jim, both sides are demanding concessions. The Republicans are willing to negotiate them. The Democrats are not.

          5. And the White House and the Senate can’t “unilaterally” do anything either.

            Of course they can. There’s a lot of stuff that the Republicans want that can happen if the Dems give it to them. The Dems could agree to delay the individual mandate for a year, and it would happen, because the GOP already supports that. A delay in the individual mandate is a concession that it’s in the Dems’ power to give.

            In the real world the Democrats aren’t asking the Republicans for any concessions. They aren’t asking the Republicans to give up anything that it is actually in their power to give up. That’s how you know that the Republicans are responsible for the shutdown.

    2. Politics requires compromise; no one gets everything they want or demand. The Republicans have offered compromises and the Democrats have not. The blame is on the Democrats, most especially Reid and Obama. If I offer you my hand and you slap it away, don’t hold your breath waiting for me to offer it again.

      1. What, exactly, have the Democrats demanded from the Republicans that the Republicans don’t already favor?

        If I offer you my hand and you slap it away

        What “hand” have the Republicans offered?

        1. The House is an equal to the Senate. The House has passed several pieces of legislation and Harry Reid has blocked them all. He’s the one demanding his way or the highway and refuses to negotiate. He’s at least equally responsible for no agreement. I don’t recall too many Republicans in Congress calling Democrats names like arsonists or terrorists, either.

          1. He’s the one demanding his way or the highway and refuses to negotiate

            All it takes to end the shutdown is a continuing resolution to fund the government. The Democrats want a $988B CR. The Republicans want a $988B CR. What is there to negotiate?

          2. “I don’t recall too many Republicans in Congress calling Democrats names like arsonists or terrorists, either.”

            Well, Saxby Chambliss ran for Senate with the message that Max Cleland was soft on terrorism.
            Michelle Bachmann accused numerous democratic congressmembers of being un-american.
            Alan West accused many Dems of being communists.
            Mike Burgess accused Jack Murtha of being a traitor.
            Rep Geoff Davis accused Dems of “Cooperating with the enemy”
            John Boehner said “”I wonder if they [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people,” adding, “They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them.”
            Don Young said “”Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.”

          4. “All it takes to end the shutdown is a continuing resolution to fund the government. ”

            You talk as if that’s the ONLY way – how intractable, hard-headed, and unimaginative of you.

            Another way is for the Senate to vote on every funding bill that came/comes from the House.

            Yet another way is for the Senate to agree to a 1 year delay in Obamacare .

            And still yet another way is to agree to defund Obamacare.

            Harry Reid has rejected all of these ways. The Dems are the obstructionists.

          5. Another way is for the Senate to vote on every funding bill that came/comes from the House.

            The Senate has voted on every House bill that would re-open the government. It hasn’t voted on all the bills that would fund individual departments, because they’d still leave parts of the government shut down.

            Yet another way is for the Senate to agree to a 1 year delay in Obamacare .

            In exchange for what?

          6. “The Senate has voted on every House bill that would re-open the government. ”

            You are a writing advertisement that while ignorance can be cured, stupidity is incurable.

            The list of bills sent to the Senate, and ignored by Harry Reid has been listed for you many times in this and other posts. The Senate ignored all those bills.
            The differences have been outlined and the issues well defined.

            Circular Jim strikes again.

          7. The list of bills sent to the Senate, and ignored by Harry Reid has been listed for you many times in this and other posts

            Where? I’ve referenced HJR 59, but I don’t see any other specific bill references here.

            The bills that Reid has ignored wouldn’t reopen the government, they’d only reopen specific departments. The bill that Boehner won’t bring up for a vote — HJR 59, with Senate Amendment 1974 — would reopen the government.

        2. For the last five years, we have been lectured on civility and compromise. When will Obama’s and the Democrat’s actions match their rhetoric? Or is this just another example from a long list where Democrats and Obama act contrary to their publicly professed ideals?

          Maybe Obama should not have painted himself into yet another red lined corner. Every day that Obama refuses to negotiate because it is bad for his reputation and self esteem is another day Obama uses government agencies as weapons against innocent civilians. It isn’t good for anyone.

          1. civility and compromise

            The Democrats compromised — they accepted the GOP’s funding number and passed a CR. Why can’t the GOP take yes for an answer?

          2. “they accepted the GOP’s funding number”

            But probably not the funding priorities. The Democrats in the Senate put their spin on the CR and in exchange for accepting their changes the Republicans are making requests that will fix part of Obamacare.

            So politics as usual.

            Neither side is clean in this. I don’t like the Republicans choice to make a statement with the CR but they left plenty of outs for Obama and the Democrats to take. Too bad Obama’s ego stands in the way.

            While Republicans are in part responsible for what got us to this point, Obama and the Democrats are entirely responsible for their response which is the purely political use of government agencies as weapons against innocent civilians.

            What is lacking in the Democrat’s efforts is any notion of civility or compromise. A direct contradiction of their rhetoric over the last five years.

          3. But probably not the funding priorities

            Why do you say “probably”? It isn’t a matter of probability, it’s a matter of record. You can go look at the text of the first House CR, House Joint Resolution 59, here. And you can look at the text of Senate Amendment 1974, the Senate version, here. Do you see any difference in funding priorities?

            The Democrats in the Senate put their spin on the CR and in exchange for accepting their changes the Republicans are making requests that will fix part of Obamacare

            Go look at H.J. Res 59 and Senate Amendment 1974. Where’s the spin?

            The Republicans aren’t offering the Democrats anything in exchange for gutting Obamacare. Nothing. Their negotiation strategy is simple extortion: give me what I want or the economy gets it.

    3. Yes jim, it is easy! You are right for a change!

      It is the side that refuses to negotiate and is going out of it’s way to shut down sites and services that are in no way impacted by lack of funds or manning resources.

  2. The House has passed spending bill after spending bill and the Democrats refuse to debate or vote on them.

    I’d say the Democrats are to blame for the shutdown.

  3. “On the seventh day of the shutdown, President Obama called on House Republican leaders Monday to allow a vote immediately on a short-term measure to reopen government operations. ”

    The Republicans have done that. Bill after bill after bill. Obama, Reid, Pelosi refuse to accept it.

    The Democrats are obstructionists and are keeping the 17% of the government that is shut down…shut down.

    1. The Republicans have done that

      No, they haven’t. Boehner has not allowed a single vote on the clean CR that passed the Senate. If he had the shutdown would be over.

      1. Drink up Comrade Jim – plenty of kool-aid left. Go read the Constitution and see if you can figure out why you are not only wrong, but you are devastatingly wrong.

          1. We have – countless times. You refuse to learn. You really aren’t worth the time and effort any more because you are far too Alinsky.

            From now on you’ll have to try and educate yourself.

          2. In other words, you were bluffing.

            Last moth the Senate sent the House a CR that would keep the government open. If put up for a vote today, it would pass, and the shutdown would be over. One person stands in the way of it getting a vote: John Boehner.

          3. No Jim in other words you are not worth the time to try – yet again – to explain things you simply refuse to understand. One could spend a lifetime chasing down your circular statements…when one is beat down you revert to another and when that’s beat down you revert to the first. When you fail at all of those you try to recast the argument in some pretzel-like manner.

            Like I say – you are too Alinsky to bother with any more save a single refutation. I don’t debate here to convince you – you are beyond help. It’s for the readers.

            You’re game is for children. So stick your thumb in your mouth and continue on. Even the “bluff” call is pure Alinsky.

        2. “Sorry, I can’t figure it out. Do enlighten me.”

          Typically – you didn’t even try. Too lazy? Not interested in learning? Afraid of what you might find?

          This is one of the myriad of reasons you are not worth expenditure of effort.

          Another is that I’m becoming convinced that part of your game is to simply keep the debate going. Prevent resolution or agreement.

          1. Too lazy? Not interested in learning?

            You won’t even specify what it is I’m supposed to be learning.

            The Senate passed a clean CR — House Joint Resolution 59, with Senate Amendment 1974 (which removed the part defunding Obamacare), on September 27. All Boehner has to do to re-open the government is to allow it a House vote.

          2. “You won’t even specify what it is I’m supposed to be learning. ”

            AGAIN how un-observant of you. Whether purposefully or not I cannot tell.

            I suggested you read the Constitution so that you would see why the statement above my reply is wrong.

            Do you really have that much trouble with reading comprehension and connecting one post to another? Or is this more of your willful obtuseness, delay, distract and distortion tactics? I suspect the patter.

            We really do not have the time to repeat post after post to make the connections for you – especially when they are on top of one another.

            You never tried; too lazy and too afraid of what you would find.

          3. I suggested you read the Constitution so that you would see why the statement above my reply is wrong.

            I’ve read the Constitution, and my statement is correct.

            You’re being sufficiently mysterious that I can’t be sure, but I’m guessing that you are referring the Constitutional requirement for spending bills to originate in the House. But the clean CR that the Senate passed and sent back to the House — where it is yet to receive a vote — was an amended House Joint Resolution 59. It originated in the House, and therefore passes Constitutional muster.

          4. All Boehner has to do to re-open the government is to allow it a House vote.

            According to Dave Weigel, he did, and the House voted against ending debate, which means the House isn’t interested in voting on the Senate amendment. Has Reid brought any of the various House bills that Gregg has mentioned numerous times up for a vote of any sort?

      2. Reid has not allowed a single vote in the Senate, while Boehner has had 26 votes in the House. Clean CRs to fund NIH, NPS, WIC sit with Reid to consider.

        1. Reid has not allowed a single vote in the Senate

          That’s not true, he repeatedly allowed votes to strip extraneous amendments, and pass clean CRs that would keep the government open (or, now, re-open it).

          Clean CRs to fund NIH, NPS, WIC sit with Reid to consider

          None of those bills would reopen the government. Boehner looks like a hostage taker trying to release the most PR-worthy hostages (the cancer patients, pregnant women, cute babies) one at a time. Why not have a vote on releasing all of them?

          1. I generally don’t like attaching unrelated items to bills but since Democrats do it all the time and it was essentially how Obamacare was passed, why can’t other political parties use the same tactics Democrats use?

            This is a lot like Democrats using the IRS and other government organizations to stop the TP and other groups from using the same organizing tactics that Democrats employ.

            Cries for a clean bill would find more ears if Democrats weren’t so habitual in creating dirty bills. Or even if they made the commitment to halt this practice going forward in exchange for a clean CR from Republicans now.

      3. Further from Slate’s Dave Weigel:
        They list them in stories with titles like “House Now Has The Votes To End Government Shutdown, But It Won’t.”

        But the story’s not quite true. The 20-odd Republicans have made sure of that. On Wednesday night, House Democrats attempted to use the vote on the previous question to pre-empt votes on “mini-CRs” and bring up a clean bill. Every single Republican voted no—including the “clean” team.

          1. Why not get rid of the Medical Device Tax or delay the mandate for a year and call it a win for both sides?

            Why does Obama think there can be no winners in a war but is determined to be the “winner” in a shutdown? Well, what happened with Syria explains why he must be the “winner” but a better way forward is to let both sides claim a victory.

          2. “So why not vote on the clean CR and see how it goes?”

            Yes why not surrender and see how it goes?

            Sheesh….

            We know how it goes…disaster, incompetence, magnified imperial presidency…

          3. Why not get rid of the Medical Device Tax or delay the mandate for a year and call it a win for both sides?

            Why is that a win for the Democrats? Those are both things that the Republicans want, and the Democrats don’t want. What, in that scenario, are the Republicans giving up?

          4. Yes why not surrender and see how it goes?

            How could allowing a vote to fund the government at the GOP’s chosen funding level possibly be a surrender? What, exactly, are they giving up?

          6. They are giving up on their goals of delaying or defunding ObamaCare.

            The Republicans don’t get to declare arbitrary goals (defund Obamacare, end the estate tax, approve Keystone, abolish the NLRB, privatize Social Security, bring back the Bush tax cuts, repeal Dodd-Frank, …) and then say that giving one up constitutes some sort of concession. By that logic a clean CR also represents the Democrats giving up on their goal to pass cap-and-trade, immigration reform, union card check, etc. Look at all the stuff they’re giving up!

            You can’t give up something you don’t have in the first place.

          7. The Republicans don’t get to declare arbitrary goals

            Of course they do. Any political goal is “arbitrary.” The only issue is if they can get the votes for it.

            Again, surely you can’t really be as stupid as you appear in this thread?

          8. Of course they do.

            No, they don’t. I can declare that I want you to give me a million dollars. If I give up on that and instead ask you for $100, is that a $999,900 concession on my part? Of course not.

            Giving up on a fantasy is not a concession.

            So we’re right back where we started: it’s easy to see who to blame for the shutdown, because the demands are so asymmetric. The Republicans are demanding that Democrats give up parts of Obamacare, and the Democrats aren’t demanding that the Republicans give up anything.

          9. I can declare that I want you to give me a million dollars. If I give up on that and instead ask you for $100, is that a $999,900 concession on my part? Of course not.

            Sorry, but it is, in the real world, if not JimWorld.

          10. So in RandWorld I just made you a $999,900 concession? You must feel awfully indebted to me! But apparently not indebted enough to admit that you lost this argument a while back.

            The Republicans are asking the Dems to give up a major piece of legislation, and the Dems aren’t asking the Republicans to give up anything. It’s that simple.

        2. So why not vote on the clean CR and see how it goes?

          Do you have a reading comprehension problem? House democrats did request to “move the previous question”, and they lost the vote. Has Reid even allowed such a vote in the Senate on the House’s mini-CR? The answer is no.

  4. Each day more and more of the government gets funded. It started out at something like a 70% active semi-shutdown and now it’s at 83% active. The Tea Party is winning.

    Obama’s childish pranks of closing off the WWII and Iwo monuments is backfired; Boehner seems to have found some spine; the administration looked insanely stupid when Amber Alerts were shut off but Michelle’s stupid “Let’s Move” web site remained open – the Dems backed down on that one; Park Service folks following orders were quick to say the orders were to inflict maximum pain and for optics only.

    And true to form, Obama’s golf course remains open, so the people can continue to see how the Elites live while they attempt to inflict pain on the proles in an attempt to force them to behave the way the Elites want them to.

    The question now is:

    Is Obama willing to grab more power from Congress – illegally I might add – and attempt to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval?

    That would kick off a pretty serious Constitutional crisis.

  5. Meanwhile the feds are hitting the Tea Party supporters where it hurts 🙂

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/government-shutdown-hunting-fishing_n_4059979.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

    Kate Sheppard
    kate.sheppard@huffingtonpost.com

    Government Shutdown Cuts Off Hunting And Fishing Areas
    Posted: 10/07/2013 6:49 pm EDT

    [[[Land Tawney, executive director of the Montana-based group Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, noted that the first day of the shutdown, Oct. 1, coincided with the day hunting season typically opens in many areas, making it particularly problematic for the hunters he works with, and for nearby communities.

    As an example, Tawney pointed to Alaska’s Kodiak Island, where brown bear hunting opens Oct. 1, and where it’s tough to get tags to hunt. A limited number of tags are given out each year, and many hunters wait years for the opportunity and spend thousands of dollars on the expedition. They’re now shut out of the federally managed Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, which makes up two-thirds of the island, and the guides, suppliers and other industries built around the hunt are also affected, he said.

    “Three months of hunting season are like Christmas for local communities,” said Tawney. “It’s when they make all their money.” ]]]

    1. Has it occurred to nobody in the federal government that the parks do no belong to the government, but instead belong to the people?

      1. “I don’t recall too many Republicans in Congress calling Democrats names like arsonists or terrorists, either.”

        Well, Saxby Chambliss ran for Senate with the message that Max Cleland was soft on terrorism.
        Michelle Bachmann accused numerous democratic congressmembers of being un-american.
        Alan West accused many Dems of being communists.
        Mike Burgess accused Jack Murtha of being a traitor.
        Rep Geoff Davis accused Dems of “Cooperating with the enemy”
        John Boehner said “”I wonder if they [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people,” adding, “They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them.”
        Don Young said “”Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.”

        1. You do realize there are actually many communists and socialists in the Democrat party right? They make up the backbone of Democrat activist groups and help organize, fund, and staff all Democrat activities.

          There are no Taliban or terrorists in the Republican party. No one chopping off heads like Obama’s Islamist militas in the ME. And Democrats wont even call real terrorists terrorists.

          I do agree that both sides sling insults. Un-American is something Democrats and Republicans say all the time. But at this moment in history, Democrats are the clear winners in incivility. Biden said Republicans want to put black people in chains and Obama said they want to get rid of black people’s civil rights.

          1. “There are no Taliban or terrorists in the Republican party.”

            Depends. If you listen to Markos Moulitsos, the GOP evangelicals are an
            “American Taliban”. Certainly if you look at some of the religious extremists
            wether the Westboro Baptists or the Warren Jeffs cult, they seem quite happy
            in the most republican parts of the country. Given the GOPs obsession with
            contraception, transvaginal ultra-sound and lesbianism, they aren’t the Taliban,
            but they could have a lot of useful idea exchange.

            As for the terrorists, it depends, you had guys like Ollie North and Ronald Reagan playing footsie with Muslim insurgents for a decade or two. John McCain was hanging out in Syria with Salafist terrorists. http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress3/2013/06/03/ron-paul-slams-demented-terrorist-john-mccain-and-his-visit-to-his-al-qaeda-in-syria/
            or peter King hanging with IRA terrorists. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/politics/09king.html?_r=0

        1. Some people don’t want bear hunting so nobody is allowed into the park that they own? Pull your head out of your ass.

          1. So some of the people don’t want the bears disturbed, so
            can they declare that the park belongs to the people and
            as some of the people they can bar everyone else from entering?

      3. Ed,
        Have you ever belonged to a condominium associate. In theory everyone owns it, but you still need permission if you want to use a meeting era or common room. That is how the U.S. works. The parks belong to the people, but the Park Service is like the condominium association and manages them on behalf of the people.

        BTW the other method was tired. It didn’t turn out very well with hucksters setting up toll gates on public roads, hunting the animals, digging up areas, stealing timber, looting native American artifacts. It was why the U.S. army was originally sent to guard Yellowstone before the National Part Service was created. And why the federal government took Yosemite away from the state of California, to preserve both for future generations.

  6. So does anyone here authoritatively know the status of Obamacare funding?

    We have a (very) partial shutdown and some functions of government are not funded – most are. The sticking point in the debate is Obamacare funding.

    What is Obamacare running on now? Funds that were approved last year? What funding is paying for the rollout/roll-back of the Obamacare system?

    If it has funding, is it slated to end at some time unless and until a CR or budget is passed by both Houses and signed by the White House? If so, when?

    Thanks

    1. What is Obamacare running on now?

      Obamacare, like Social Security and Medicare, is funded as a permanent appropriation. Funding for those programs continues until Congress affirmatively changes it; it doesn’t have to be renewed periodically, and so isn’t directly subject to funding lapses like the current shutdown.

      Sen. Tom Coburn asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate what would happen to Obamacare in the case of a shutdown; their answer is here. See also this and this.

      If it has funding, is it slated to end at some time unless and until a CR or budget is passed by both Houses and signed by the White House?

      It isn’t slated to end until the House, Senate and President (or veto override) all agree to end it.

      1. “Obamacare, like Social Security and Medicare, is funded as a permanent appropriation. Funding for those programs continues until Congress affirmatively changes it; it doesn’t have to be renewed periodically, and so isn’t directly subject to funding lapses like the current shutdown.”

        Your sentence, above, says funding of Obamacare (meaning all of it) continues until Congress changes it. None of your sources say that in the slightest.

        One example:

        “The tax subsidies to purchase health insurance, for example, are considered mandatory funds. “Therefore, the funds for such credits would continue to be available via permanent appropriation during a government shutdown,” CRS concludes. While the IRS hasn’t gamed out the exact situation, the researchers believe “it may be likely that at least some of the eligibility and processing functions associated with payment of this credit might continue during a government shutdown.”

        Note well the words “…at least some…”

        In other words some must be funded unless the law is changed; others can be funded by moving some money around but that’s a finite source; and others cannot be funded.

        You purposefully distort and lie about your own sources. You are dismissed.

        1. None of your sources say that in the slightest.

          You seem to have missed this:

          The funding for the Affordable Care Act is a permanent appropriation — meaning it was approved in a prior session of Congress (in 2010, when the act was passed) and doesn’t have to be approved again.

Comments are closed.