"I need my paycheck more than two old people need their house."

Pettiness; really did anyone expect something else from Obama?

The guy has been petty since day one; giving Hillary the finger, calling McCain a old fish wrapped up in newspaper, calling the rest of us bitter clingers.

I'm not surprised by these actions; just disgusted by them. And even more disgusted by those who STILL support Obama.

Even the "ocean" is closed until further notice. Yep, the Great One has ordered the national beach by me to be closed. Normally, one has to pay a fee to park during the summer and the rest of the year it is open to anyone. There are never any lifeguards so swimming is at your own risk. During the winter months the park is open while the restrooms, etc., are closed. Now, however, the park is closed. Only the Coast Guard, who have a station in the park, are allowed in. The 5-mile long trail for walking, running, bicycling, etc. is also closed. Obama is not just petty; he is a putz!

"It's exactly what we wanted" - Michelle Bachmann

GOP plans shutdown, blames Obama for shutting down.

I am sick and tired of these federal leaseholders whining whenever their good deal is threatened..they got sweet deal, a cheap vacay home, and over the years they start to feel entitled as if they owned the land under it. It sounds like this couple was skirting the rules...no sympathy.

I can see more trouble for this couple up ahead since they sought out publicity. If the lease agreement with the government requires them to have an alternative residence, the government could nullify their lease if they didn't really have a residence and they would lose the cabin. A family-owned business with cots on the floor is not a residence. (The post doesn't disclose if they have an actual residence in another state. Maybe they do.) And if they had to live at the ice cream shop, that could nullify the store's insurance policies because it's likely not supposed to be used as a residence.

Charles: Pettiness; really did anyone expect something else from Obama?

So, this shut down is really Obama's fault? I don't see why. The House is refusing to fund a bill that has been passed into law and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

GOP plans shutdown, blames Obama for shutting down. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers

I'm sure the extremists on both sides of the aisle had a hand in planning for and even instigating a shutdown. It has become a political battle of wills with each side wanting to use it to break the other party.

Politics with this much hostility is not good for the country. And the one person who can help put out the fire is pouring gasoline on it, saying he should not have to give anything and that he refuses to negotiate.

==============================

In the end, the Democrats bear the majority (but not all) of the onus for the hostility and extremes to which the politics around Obamacare have sunk.

Obamacare is the linchpin in the shutdown fight. Obamacare was passed by (forced through) Congress on a strictly partisan basis. Not even the liberal Republicans from New England could be convinced to vote for it. Moderate and conservative Democrats were cajoled or blackmailed to vote for it.

Had it passed with a reasonable number of Republican votes (i.e., had it been a bipartisan bill), today's effort by the Republicans to defund it would not be happening. History provides plenty of examples of that.

Social Security was passed in 1935 with both Republicans and Democrats voting for it (and against it). When Dwight Eisenhower was elected president, one of his goals was to eliminate Social Security. However, since it was a bipartisan bill, he would have run into opposition from both parties, so he decided to let it stand.

When Strom Thurmond and many of the Dixiecrats defected to the Republican party, the stage was set to refight the Civil Righs Act of 1964, since its passage (and the failure of the Dixiecrats to prevent it) was one of the prime drivers of their defection. However, Everett Dirksen and other prominent Republicans had voted for (and even sponsored) the bill, so any attempt to mobilize the party to fight the Act would have failed.

The Republican-majority House of Representatives that was elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2012 was elected on a party-wide platform of defunding Obamacare.

Since Obamacare was steamrolled over Republican objections (and with no Republican votes), the party has no one in it to argue against defunding it and to object to the party's attempt to derail it. Had the Democrats solicited Republican input and support when they didn't need it (when they had absolute and total control over Congress 2008-2010), they would not find themselves in this position today.

Nancy Pelosi's dictatorial reign as Speaker of the House sowed the seeds of today's discord and may land her in the judgement of history as one of the worst Speakers ever.

Obama likes to say that Obamacare is settled because it was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Nice dissemination, that. It was ramrodded through Congress with absolutely no support from the other side of the aisle - and the side of the aisle doing the ramrodding lost its majority in the election immediately following the law's passage. As for being upheld by the Supreme Court, sections of it were declared unconstitutional and it was only upheld overall as a tax, not as it was passed (regulation of interstate commerce).

The objectives of Obamacare may indeed be noble (or may be nanny-state interference), but the passage of it was an object lesson in how not to pass a bill that you want to remain the law of the land when the other party takes charge.

It's also a horrible way to do insurance and exacerbates the worst of the American healthcare system while stifling the best of it - but that's another debate for another time.

Yes, the House that was elected in part to stop Obamacare should just willingly go along with funding the act that they were elected to oppose. The only problem I see with this strategy was that these people were too p*ssy to do it a couple of years ago.

And Chief Justice John Roberts is an idiot. He knew damned well that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but created a giant logical pretzel to rule it constitutional as a tax.

In the meantime . . .

ENDGAME: AMERICA (Part 1 of 2)

(And don't think Obama isn't above doing such a thing, either.)

"So, this shut down is really Obama's fault? I don't see why. The House is refusing to fund a bill that has been passed into law and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court. "

Yeah? and it is also completely up to them to fund it OR NOT. This is the rule of the purse, and that is also Congressional mandate.

Swiss and mpetrie98, I don't think anyone's saying Obama isn't a gamester.

What's happening is the GOP planned the shutdown to halt Obamacare (see link above) - and then goes to the media and blames Obama.

Not a fan of Obama but Boehner & Co., please, don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

What's happening is the GOP planned the shutdown to halt Obamacare....

Maybe if, back when Nancy & Company held absolute control over Congress, they had solicited GOP input and support for Obamacare instead of steamrolling any and all GOP objections, the GOP today wouldn't be so hellbent upon halting it.

[See my earlier post]

Look, this is politics as usual. I credit the house with at least taking a vote. Members have had to say yea or nea to every bill sent to the senate.
Wish Harry Reid would allow a vote in the Senate on Obamacare or an actual budget.

The democrats are unwilling to own this pile of shit and they are trying to give themselves political cover for the next election. Too many of the democratic senators are from pissed off red states, and Harry Reid knows this. They are reaping what they sowed, as Conan pointed out.

Cant blame them for stalling but it is going to come down to the debt limit, and we will see who blinks. I can foresee a possible world class backdown like the one that occurred over Syria, but who knows? The republicans might fold, or they may have decided this is the hill they want to die on.

If they had a president that cared about their party even half as much as he does his own sorry butt, he would not be making them the fall guy for policies that are extremely likely to lose them the Senate in 2014.

If the governemnt is shut down, and it was like totally unexpected, who the fuck did they manage to print up all those signs?

So, this shut down is really Obama's fault? I don't see why. The House is refusing to fund a bill that has been passed into law and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

They dropped that the day after the shut down. 7 days ago

My brother and I stopped in West Branch, Iowa recently to have a late lunch. West Branch is a small town and economically dependent on a library /museum based on, ironically, Herbert Hoover's birthplace. The whole town was shut down. We jumped the barricades and walked around the small main street. There was a couple from California who were looking at the signs when we were getting ready to leave, saw us coming out and inquired. I told them "This is Iowa, no one will bother you if just go look around.You won't get harassed or a fine or anything like that"

The people in the article above who can't access their house is ridiculous. Completely unreasonable and lacks common sense. We walked through West Branch and there was security but they left us alone.
West Branch and the shutting down of parks and memorials tells one more aspect of how this is affecting more than the pissing matchers in Washington.
Towns like West Branch whose livelihood is around tourism will have a hard time bouncing back considering winter is coming soon. Summer and Fall are our biggest tourism times. The shop owners will feel this into next year, if they can afford to keep going.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. -- Nancy Pelosi 9 March, 2010

Really those were prophetic words. When the citizens of the United States started to see what was in the [Un]Affordable Care Act they started to say "We don't like it."

Now four years down the line, more Americans are saying it needs severe work to be fixed. And they are telling their representatives and senators as well. The Republican representatives are listening, but the Democratic senators are refusing to understand that they aren't making the population happy.

Meanwhile Obama is instructing his underlings to make this as painful for everyone as possible in the hope that the population will pressure the Republicans to change. I quite frankly don't care what Obama tries to do. If the government stays in this status for a while, maybe the American people will realize how much of the federal leviathan we can truly live without.

Yes, Patrick. It IS Obama's fault. Obama has refused to negotiate, Obama is the President for crying out loud - It is he job to get congress to work together or offer a plan that will make both sides "happy" (well, maybe not "happy"; but at least to agree on something other than "my way or the highway, I won, you fuckers")

Obama shoved his Obamacare prick up our asses and told us to "shut up, you'll like it bitch!" Then does anyone really wonder why there is such a strong fight to stop this rape of the American healthcare system using any method possible?

It is Obama who ordered the shutdown of national parks, etc. where it takes more manhours to barrycade an open plaza, print up signs, etc. (or in my local area - the fucking beach!) than to leave them open as they usually are.

Yes, Patrick, Obama is a petty asshole over this and the MSM and other Obamafanatics believe their god does not wrong.

P.S. refusing to fund a bill that was passed into law is just as often, if not more so, done by the Democrats - they just cannot stand it when the other side uses their own tactics. So, the kettle calls the pot black or some such thing (But, I guess using that cliche makes me a racist).

Both sides need to own up to this shutdown, it started with unreasonable demands from both sides. A clean CR would mean one side gets everything they want and defunding ACA was not going to happen, and they knew it. Both were unreasonable.

Once they calmed down a bit, Mr. "I don't negotiate with terrorists" was still unwilling to accept 3 CRs because he would have to sit down, shut up, and listen to the other side. When the pres. didn't agree they started trying to at least gets important services running and now that isn't good enough either. Boehner said he would pass a CR if the pres would just consider keeping the playing field level between politicians, companies and the people. Obama refused.

Obama simply won't listen, that is the only demand right now, the ball is in his court and instead of listening he shuts things down that don't need to be to make the GOP look like the only bad guy.

I would actually love to see each program get considered individually based on their merits, it could be a good start to reduce spending.

Pettiness; really did anyone expect something else from Obama?

Check #SpiteHouse on twitter. Got some good info.

People should (but most won't) realize that if what's barely a partial shutdown is actually affecting many people, perhaps that's a sign that the gov't has it's hands in far too many things. Unfortunately, far too many actually think that's a good thing.

Well, I can't agree that failure to negotiate belongs to Obama. If Republicans had their way, there would have been no healthcare reform, none! And you all know that.

They are not looking out for your interests. They're looking out for insurance companies. Your own needs could not be less relevant.

So, if someone doesn't happen to have healthcare insurance, that's all fine with Republicans. "Go to E.R. See? Healthcare."

(Of course, when this person ends up not paying, we'll all end up paying for it, but you just don't get that part of it.)

And if someone who does have insurance but their insurance just decides to drop them because their particular needs got too expensive, Republicans would ask, "Well, what's wrong with that?"

As I've said before, the insurance companies blew it. And with the healthcare reform attempted during the Clinton administration, they can't say they didn't see this coming.

The Republican-majority House of Representatives that was elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2012 was elected on a party-wide platform of defunding Obamacare.

I hate gerrymandering. I think districts should be created by an automated process that starts with squares and is automatically sized to make them as equal in population as possible, or something similar where people of either party can't carve out their little safe areas.

But the sudden wailing about gerrymandering by dems is hilarious. It's essentially they're mad that republicans in some states finally had their chance to use the same playbook the dems have been using for decades to hold onto power in plenty of areas of the country that they normally wouldn't have.

Do I like that there has been some gerrymandering by republicans? No. But the hypocrisy by the dems on this issue is quite thick.

P.S. refusing to fund a bill that was passed into law is just as often, if not more so, done by the Democrats - they just cannot stand it when the other side uses their own tactics. So, the kettle calls the pot black or some such thing (But, I guess using that cliche makes me a racist).

Or, simply choose to not only not follow the laws on the books, but single handedly implement a "dream act." Or decide to unilaterally modify their own health-care law, which is technically illegal. The selective waivers and delays for some, but not all, was not written into the law.

I actually think the Republicans asking for a delay of the law for the individual mandate is a bad move. Then it would wait until after the next election. Most of the implementation was deliberately set after the 2012 election to avoid people from "seeing what was in it." It's better to let the mandate kick in (and actually force the other delays to not happen) and let people see the effects and costs now, if you ask me.

Patrick, you say "if Republicans had their way, there would have been no healthcare reform" yet the Republicans have tried tort reform from 2009 to 2012, is it then the Democrats fault that there are so many bogus lawsuits against doctors? There was reform that would have significantly cut costs. How about the fund that the Rep. said would be available to help those who can't afford insurance?　

My family doctor (which the ACA won't cover because it is a private practice) spends more on insurance than he and his office take home. After his office, staff and insurance are paid; he only gets 3 months worth of the income from seeing patients. His $75/visit bill could easily be half if he didn't need insurance and seeing as he was every person who tried to sue had a bogus claim that the courts shut down at a high cost to him, he would not need it with reform.

There are so many ways to fix healthcare so it is cheap that the Democrats won't support it isn't funny and yet there solution is to use the insurance companies you just railed on as the solution?

Mr. I don't negotiate never negotiated Obamacare, here is the fallout that he should have expected.

Today Pelosi and other Dems Had the closed mall opened for them and illegal immigration activists, including stages, soundsystem being built, all on closed land that veterans were arrested on this week. Because to this administration, illegal immigrants have more rights than US veterans.

"Well, I can't agree that failure to negotiate belongs to Obama. "

I can. His position was stated this morning, by CNN no less, as being one of complete refusal to negotiate. He's made it clear that it's his way or the highway. Meanwhile, he's off to play golf, at the immaculately manicured Andrews AFB golf course, which is still open.

Congressbitches need to read the fuckin' law before they sign it. They sound like morons.

"Yeah, we passed it, but it sucks so much we're going to shut down the government and exempt ourselves from the law. And we're going to blame the President for passing the law we signed and then shutting down the government we refuse to fund. That'll learn him."

Well, I can't agree that failure to negotiate belongs to Obama. If Republicans had their way, there would have been no healthcare reform, none! And you all know that. -- Patrick at October 8, 2013 3:50 PM

Please, cast all the blame on the Republican minority parties in the House and Senate in 2008 and 2009 for refusing to negotiate. They were being listened to because they could have stopped the Democrats from passing the [un]Affordable Care Act. So the suggestions from the minority to just change the preexisting conditions and other similar issues were just garbage.

It is all the Republican's fault that Obamacare is not liked.

Congressbitches need to read the fuckin' law before they sign it. They sound like morons. -- Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 8, 2013 6:46 PM

Again the Democratic party passed the [un]Affordable Care Act. So now the House of Representatives is listening to the citizens. The Senate, which was originally designed to represent the individual separate states, is playing a game. If the senators actually represented the states Obamacare would have been DOA. Now they are sitting there and blocking the House. As I understand it there are something like 28 House bills sitting waiting for the Senate to vote on them. The Senate, via Harry Reid, is refusing to vote on them.

"Yeah, we passed it, but it sucks so much we're going to shut down the government and exempt ourselves from the law. And we're going to blame the President for passing the law we signed and then shutting down the government we refuse to fund. That'll learn him."

The Congress that passed Obamacare was the 2008-2010 Congress and it was dominated by Democrats. The Democrats has a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House. So, the Democrats basically ignored any Republican objections to Obamacare, bribed and blackmailed reluctant Democrats (Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc.) and passed the 2,000 page bill without reading it - and without a single Republican vote.

As a result, in 2010 the Democrats suffered one of the most lopsided defeats any party has suffered in mid-term elections since the establishment of the Republic - losing seats to Republicans who promised to do anything they could to overturn Obamacare.

The Republicans cemented their hold on the House of Representatives and gained Senate seats in the 2012 election which saw a schizophrenic electorate re-elect the man who vowed to defend Obamacare and a House of Representatives that vowed to end it.

=========================

"Yeah, we passed it, but it sucks so much we're going to ... exempt ourselves from the law."

Congress is not technically exempt from Obamacare. Congress and Congressional staffers are actually forced to use the Obamacare exchanges. And the unread 2,000-page Obamacare law ended the healthcare premium subsidy available to Congressional staffers.

As the start of Obamacare loomed, both parties in Congress pressured the president to enact a subsidy so Congressional staffers wouldn't suffer from the increased premiums the insurance program that was supposed to lower premiums was inflicting on the country. Unlike the rest of us, Congressional staffers will have a pay raise to help them deal with the sticker shock of Obamacare.

NakkiNyan: yet the Republicans have tried tort reform from 2009 to 2012, is it then the Democrats fault that there are so many bogus lawsuits against doctors?

Tort reform is not healthcare. It's intended to put a cap on lawsuits, and states that have tort reform have noticed only a negligible difference. Lawsuits are not the problem. The only person who would be dramatically affected by tort reform is the injured the party who is now limited on what he can collect on a lawsuit.

As the start of Obamacare loomed, both parties in Congress pressured the president to enact a subsidy so Congressional staffers wouldn't suffer from the increased premiums the insurance program that was supposed to lower premiums was inflicting on the country. -- Conan the Grammarian at October 8, 2013 8:12 PM

To back that up read the read the Politico article on it.

"... schizophrenic..."

Please use this term correctly, or don't use it.

Gog_Magog: Congressbitches need to read the fuckin' law before they sign it. They sound like morons.

Much like they passed the much shorter Patriot Act without reading it.

...schizophrenic.... [...] Please use this term correctly, or don't use it. ~ Patrick

I'm going to forego political correctness and stick with the Merriam-Webster definition of "exhibiting contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes."

While I recognize schizophrenia is a serious condition and the word gets frivolously bandied about far too often, I'm sticking with it in this case because it best illustrates the often contradictory collective psyche of the American electorate.

==============================

Tort reform is not healthcare.

True, but malpractice insurance is a significant part of healthcare costs and comprehensive tort reform needs to be addressed in any true overhaul of the healthcare and health insurance industries.

Bloomberg reported that malpractice results in $55 billion in costs every year. While that estimate is just over 2% of total healthcare costs, it may be low. The actual costs of malpractice liability are difficult to estimate because doctors, in choosing courses of treatment, consider medical-school training, traditions among their peers, financial incentives, as well as the medical-malpractice system. And the medical malpractice appropriate treatment standard is based on local and situational customary practices. So, if a doctor deviates from those, he may find himself liable for malpractice, even if the non-customary treatment course he followed was what he thought was best for the patient.

People like to point out how great the "free" healthcare in other countries is. I'll bet lawyers in those countries aren't getting rich off of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits against the state-run medical-industrial complex.

Of course, a necessary accompaniment of tort reform (and overall healthcare reform) would be for the medical field to stop protecting incompetent practitioners. I read somewhere that roughly 5% of practitioners caused 50% of malpractice payouts over the past few decades. Like teachers, medical practitioners strongly resist outside regulation of their tribe.

Another major driver of costs that is not directly related to the actual delivery of healthcare is taxes. Hospitals and medical providers can write off a certain amount of non-paid bills. So, inflate the bill to inflate the write-off.

This is what's really so disappointing about Obamacare. Instead of actually reforming the the delivery of healthcare to increase quality and reduce costs, it merely strengthened the worst aspects of the existing US healthcare delivery and gutted the best.

A great opportunity was wasted as the Democrats turned out to be more interested in sticking it to the Republicans than in implementing real reform (not that I think the Republicans would have acted notably better if they'd had the total domination of Congress the Democrats wielded like a club from 2008 to 2010).

Much like they passed the much shorter Patriot Act without reading it.

The Speaker of the House when the PATRIOT Act was passed did not famously say, "we need to pass it in order to find out what's in it."

The PATRIOT Act passed the House on a mostly (not straight) partisan vote and passed the Senate on an overwhelming vote (98-1).

While passed in a fairly rushed vote, the PATRIOT Act was not 2,000+ pages long and was readable in the time allotted for review and debate - although Jim McDermott and John Conyers both admitted to Michael Moore in Farenheit 911 they had not read it when they voted on it.

John Conyers then frighteningly went on, "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?"

Slate reported, "The ACLU, in a new fact sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law 'modest and incremental.' Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion...."

The PATRIOT Act also had a sunset provision with most of the Act expiring on December 31, 2005 unless re-authorized.

The PATRIOT Act has been re-authorized in 2005, 2006, and 2011 - under three Congresses and two presidents.

The PATRIOT Act has also been criticized as well as defended by both Republicans and Democrats. It is not a partisan club one party uses to beat the other party.

It is not a partisan club one party uses to beat the other party.

Instead, it's a non-partisan club the government uses to beat the rest of us.

Actually, my objection to the use of the word "schizophrenia" has to do with a popular misconception, which your use implies, that schizophrenia is a synonym for MPD (or, as I prefer to call it, DID).

Schizophrenia does not mean multiple personalities. And Merriam-Webster should not cited on medicial terminology.

Actually, my objection to the use of the word "schizophrenia" has to do with a popular misconception, which your use implies, that schizophrenia is a synonym for MPD (or, as I prefer to call it, DID).

Schizophrenia does not mean multiple personalities. And Merriam-Webster should not cited on medicial terminology.

Posted by: Patrick at October 9, 2013 10:01 AM

Well, thank god this isn't med school, and we can use the social definitions of words rather than the technical ones.

That is, if Patrick approves, of course.

Isab, I've come to realize that I have better things to do with my time than engage in a whizzing contest with you.

From what I see, you have precious little to offer, as a commenter on this blog, or even as a human being. Consequently, you simply aren't worth it.

I would ask the conservatives on this thread their thoughts as to how this shutdown is going. Looking at it as objectively as I can, Obama has no reason to capitulate to the shutdown. He's winning, simply put. According to PoliticusUSA, 70% of Americans polled blame this on the Republicans.

According to PoliticusUSA, 70% of Americans polled blame this on the Republicans. -- Patrick at October 9, 2013 5:24 PM

I'm getting Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete. going to your link.

But that 70% is because none of the small bills approved by the House are getting past the Senate. Such as the Fallen Soldier Bill.

There is a bill waiting on the Senate to approval to reopen the national parks, NHS and the rest has been tabled by the Senate.

So please keep listening to the lamestream media and ignore all other facts.

[Obama's] winning.... [...] According to PoliticusUSA, 70% of Americans polled blame this on the Republicans.

And yet, Obama's approval rating is down to 37%.

That ain't winning.

Conan, if 70% of the population are blaming Republicans for this fiasco, it's winning.

...if 70% of the population are blaming Republicans for this fiasco, it's winning.

That 70% you cite isn't blaming solely the Republicans. That 70% is blaming mainly the Republicans, but not solely.

At least half of the 62% blaming Republicans in the latest AP-GfK poll say the Democrats and/or Obama also bear some of the blame. So, that means only 31% blame solely the Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/government-shutdown-republicans-poll_n_4069254.html

It's always easier to blame a faceless blob (the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party, Congress, etc.) than it is an actual person (Obama), so you have to expect that the faceless blob will get a bigger hit than the specific person.

It's also easier to blame the guy you didn't vote for - especially if he's not in your district/state (Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, etc.).

Obama's approval rating has dropped to 37% with 53% specifically disapproving of the job he's doing.

Congress may only have a 5% approval rating collectively, but each Congressperson is probably much higher in his own district (the electorate in which he ran). It's always the other rat causing the problems, not "our" guy.

Obama on the other hand is at only a 37% approval rating among the electorate that voted him into office.

That ain't winning.

"Isab, I've come to realize that I have better things to do with my time than engage in a whizzing contest with you."

Then why did you start it?