Terminalcoffee discussion

Once again the extreme right brings this country to a screeching halt. If Boehner simply allowed the clean Senate bill to come to a vote in the House, it would pass easily. The majority in the House want to pass this in order to avoid a shutdown, but Boehner is caving to the most extreme members of his party who represent just a small percentage of the country.

How can any citizen know where to stand on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when it's only being revealed in increments? It might have many more supporters if the whole plan had been laid out and explained in the beginning and not passed wholesale without explanation.

I've heard...we'll see for sure tomorrow... That this will close the national parks. We won't be able to get in an those staying inside (who presumably paid good money for their hotels and camp sites) will be given 48hrs to get out. Interesting. Surely tourism pays for a good deal of the running of the park, passes to get in, food, gas, shopping (you'd be surprised how many opportunities there are to shop and gas up IN the park.

There are a whole bunch of politicians across the spectrum from right to left (or vice-versa) that need a time out.

If you were worried about our lawmakers getting a paycheck during this shutdown, rest easy! The salaries of the 535 Congress members, about $174,000 a year, are not subject to furlough. No matter how much Congress does not work, it still gets paid.

Dennis wrote: "If you were worried about our lawmakers getting a paycheck during this shutdown, rest easy! The salaries of the 535 Congress members, about $174,000 a year, are not subject to furlough. No matter..."

But you can send letters to your representatives telling them not to cash that check or you'll be voting them out next time 'round.

I made the mistake of watching a few minutes of Fox News after Sleepy Hollow last night. They tried to infer that since all the people being furloughed are "non-essential" they probably shouldn't have jobs in the first place.

Well, imho there plenty of blame to go around for both parties. Reminds of a bunch of fifth graders squabbling on the playground.

And their personal wealth---and still getting paid!!!---protects them while many ordinary Americans suffer.

I, for one, am currently "unemployed" because of the political power play going on in DC. I also know, that if they don't reach an agreement soon, no Washington incumbent will receive my vote in the next election.

Misha wrote: "I'm just not buying the "both sides are at fault" argument. Have you seen the lengthy list of sweeping policy changes the House Republicans asked for in their CR while offering NOTHING to the Democ..."

The President did say he would not compromise. Is that a problem or not?

Misha wrote: "CD wrote: The President did say he would not compromise. Is that a problem or not?

No. Under the circumstances, he shouldn't compromise. Compromise isn't always valuable, particularly when it inv..."

There is an element of political madness in all of this I agree! I have several personal, real world friends who were 'unemployed' as of yesterday. Some more so than others as one friend who works for the S.E.C. is working on, and I quote - "left over funds". How long??? This then may raise the very real problem of the Anti Deficiency Act.

The President and the Democratic controlled Senate want a 'clean' continuing resolution for funding of the government until a budget can be agreed upon. All well and good. A 'clean' CR is a euphemism for continuing policy without change for expenditure and allocation. In other words the President and the Senate get what they want without negotiation, change, or any level of responsibility until a budget is in place and the appropriation process starts.

Is there a problem with this? At one level absolutely not. But there is this small sticky issue that we, the United States are not a parliamentary system where the majority party gets their way. We are a Federalist system with a balance of power where different political parties run different branches of the government simultaneously when the voters decide. Ergo, the problem. The part of the government that constructs the budget, The House of Representative, disagrees with the part of the government that deliberates on and approves the budget, The Senate and with the Executive branch (The Pres) that puts it into action. Not illegal, not immoral, and everybody in our system of government at this time is involved with the creation of 'the problem'. The Senate wouldn't approve 4 different CR's, in fact Reid wouldn't let them even come to a vote. Hmmmm, not very democratic. But within his authority.

For a real world example of the damage this does one needs look no further than my home state of Illinois. We've been operating on CR's and special legislation in lieu of a real budget for years! The pension funds for state workers are destroyed, state contractors have stopped delivery of services, medical care for the poor and indigent are all but non existent, Senior nutrition programs are being shut down, nursing homes, therapy programs, anything that has been funded by the State of Illinois is in crisis.

Why? The elected officials don't want to be tied down to a responsible and 'affordable' level of expenditure. This is not only a Blue state, it is arguably the bluest state out there. Why are we Blue? Because we haven't figured out that the Democratic Party in Illinois doesn't have anyone's best interest in mind. Just getting re-elected for 20, 30, or more years.

Even with a clean CR the democrats end up with the worse deal, because sequestration is still in place. Remember THAT lovely "compromise?"