US government Shutdown

[LapsedPacifist]

I started to read through it but got to this point:

" For all its Jacksonian populist rhetoric, the Newest Right is no more a rebellion of the white working class than was the original faux-populist Jacksonian movement, led by rich slaveowners like Andrew Jackson and agents of New York banks like Martin Van Buren."

And decided that if your willing to compare your opponents to slave-owners then I am not going to trust you to be very objective.

Could you try not being criminally stupid? It's an article describing the current very conservative movement as an intellectual and effective response to changing times and demographics. Particularly about how locally powerful southerners are maintaining their power. The comparison to the slave owner class of the pre-civil war is intentional and direct. It may even be apt(I think it is), but that's up to the reader's discretion.

And take the websites down? People are accusing "Barry" of deliberately thwarting their vacations, and you want employees to go through the effort of taking websites down?

[Broomstick]

Nope, I can think it through just fine, I just have no interest in jumping through the justification hoops you are. Technically or not Camp David serves little purpose when the President is not there. No reason for it to be open.

On the other hand, if the funding IS there then there is no reason NOT to keep it open, correct?

Second, if one website is taken down due to government shutdown then all non-critical should be taken down.

I guess you don't understand the difference between a maintenance intensive site that requires constant updating and something that can simply be put up on the internet and left unattended for long periods of time, then?

This last weekend the Armed Services network stopped sending NFL games overseas for servicemen to watch. Are you suggesting that there is extensive day to day work done so the troops can watch those games? Yeah sure, I am guessing its all in place along with a long term contract with whatever provider is supply the games. But suddenly the shutdown means the troops didn't get to watch NFL Sunday.

Frankly, I'm more concerned the troops regularly receive essential supplies like food and fuel and are able to maintain contact with their families back home than they be able to watch football games, and I suspect most of them would agree with that. If funds are limited then decisions must be made. I leave it to the military to decide what is essential to their mission rather than second guessing them all the time.

Government funding and spending is more complicated than you seem to think. As you point out, this isn't much different than prior multi-day shut downs, why would you expect it to be?

Something for everyone to consider:

Michael Lind on Salon.com

In that light, everything the Republicans are doing makes a lot of sense and the only way to stop them is hammer them back as hard as possible and take absolutely no prisoners when dealing with them.

This is the kind of article that people like me, who don't know the details of American political history, read and go, "Whoa, that is really instructive, if it's true!". And then go, "Okay, how the fuck do I find out if it's true?"

Good question. It certainly does make some sense to this American, but the main problem with short articles trying to explain anything about US politics is that political movements and parties are made up of individuals, all of whom may have multiple motivations and agendas. So it's not "true" in the sense of something more fact-and-observation based. It is true in identifying a group that has a self-interest in limiting the Federal US government.

I started to read through it but got to this point:

" For all its Jacksonian populist rhetoric, the Newest Right is no more a rebellion of the white working class than was the original faux-populist Jacksonian movement, led by rich slaveowners like Andrew Jackson and agents of New York banks like Martin Van Buren."

And decided that if your willing to compare your opponents to slave-owners then I am not going to trust you to be very objective.

Why not? That's like saying you don't trust someone discussing German history from 1920 to 1950 because they said the word "Nazi". Slave owners had an enormous impact on the US, both in structuring the government (read the actual constitution and you'll see that the institution was enshrined in the foundation of the country) and its history (see Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement).

Do you think that the desire to exploit the labor of other human beings at low or no cost has lost its attraction? It's not called slavery, but such exploitation without recourse does still occur.

[TimothyC]

The shutdown is not "fake", major segments of the US Federal government really are shut down.

The statistics I have seen have thatn at least 80% of all regular federal expenditures are still being made. Now, about half of all federal monies go to pay non-discresionary items (interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Welfare, & SCHIP). While this makes the 80% figure disingenuous, a 60% figure would not be.

Also, Obamacare is not yet proven to be a boondoogle. One of the reasons for the shutdown is the fear on the Right that it won't be a boondoggle.

One thing that no one on the left has answered yet is this:

With the employer mandate having been unilatterally delayed by the administration (and the administation alone) for a full year (so it goes into effect on 2015-01-01 instead of 2014-01-01), why is the individual mandate still in place to start in 2014?

The keep kids fit website doesn't require the frequent updates and maintenance of the Amber Alert system, so basically you can just leave the first website up to run on momentum, as it were, and the second goes down because the necessary support personnel aren't available, having been sent home.

And yet, I can't get to the NASA Technical Reports Server, which shouldn't need a lot of maintenance if new files are not being uploaded.
Pre-post edit: it seems that public/news pressure has forced the administration to reactivate the Amber Alert site. The fact that it came back up already would imply that there was no reason for it to be down in the first place except for maybe some directive to make this as painful as possible.

It seems Obama's directives to make this as painful to the American people as possible don't include any pain for his wife's pet projects.

[Covenant]

Are we seriously arguing about if or if not it's fair for the President to actually shut down the stuff he has the authority to shut down during a government shutdown? Is it really being argued that one part of a debate, the losing part, should be allowed to collapse the structure of governance in this country and not have to see any consequences from that action? That the President of the opposition should bend over backwards to keep open the things people like to use that the government does?

Leaving aside if you think it's nice to do or not, which is pretty subjective, in a fight that's gotten so bad that the losing half of a debate has decided to flip the chessboard in rage, isn't it entirely fair for the ramifications for those actions to reach public attention?

If people really think the government does "nothing good" and has no role in maintaining the things we love, isn't shutting those down a good way to demonstrate the value of good governance? How can we expect to answer one party shutting down the government if not by making their actions inconvenient? Isn't that the very definition of fair play?

[Magis]

One thing that no one on the left has answered yet is this:

With the employer mandate having been unilatterally delayed by the administration (and the administation alone) for a full year (so it goes into effect on 2015-01-01 instead of 2014-01-01), why is the individual mandate still in place to start in 2014?

I don't see why the delay of one part should require the delay of another part. The onus is on you to establish why the individual mandate should be delayed, not the other way around.

Anyway, the reason why the individual mandate shouldn't be delayed is because there is no benefit in delaying it. Expanding the insurance pool is necessary to compensate for coverage being extended to people with pre-existing conditions, and the "penalty" for not having insurance is only a maximum of $95. So I don't think that delaying the mandate serves any purpose other than stubbornly obstructing the function of the ACA.

[Simon_Jester]

Nope, I can think it through just fine, I just have no interest in jumping through the justification hoops you are. Technically or not Camp David serves little purpose when the President is not there. No reason for it to be open.

If soldiers are getting paid to perform their normal duties, and their normal duties are "operate Camp David," then Camp David stays open. Contrary to your wild imagination, the federal government DOES have broad categories of 'open' and 'not open,' and not all decisions are being made on a case by case basis... among other things, because many of the people responsible for making and implementing such decisions are not getting paid because of the shutdown!

Second, if one website is taken down due to government shutdown then all non-critical should be taken down.

If running a website require no input of federal labor, and the workers in question are not of an "essential" category which can be forced to work without pay, there is no reason for it to be shut down. If a website requires maintenance, it must be shut down. Simple.

if the website will stay up without maintenance as long as the server stays plugged in, the site keeps running through the shutdown. If it requires active work to keep it updated regularly, it goes down, unless it is "essential" in that people can be forced to work on it without pay. Simple.

This last weekend the Armed Services network stopped sending NFL games overseas for servicemen to watch. Are you suggesting that there is extensive day to day work done so the troops can watch those games? Yeah sure, I am guessing its all in place along with a long term contract with whatever provider is supply the games. But suddenly the shutdown means the troops didn't get to watch NFL Sunday.

If there is ANY federal employee who must regularly do ANYTHING to ensure that the games are sent overseas, then odds are this is impacted by the shutdown. Without any knowledge, you guess that no federal employee is involved in the process in an ongoing way, that no essential facilities for coordinating the project are in closed federal buildings.

You know nothing of these matters, and cannot justly assume you know what is going on.

You don't seem to understand what the shutdown entails here: the government cannot pay federal workers to do anything. Anything that does, or even MIGHT, require a federal worker to do something comes to a screeching halt, unless it is deemed "essential" enough to justify forcing federal employees to work without pay. Or unless Congress passes a resolution so that the people who would do it will get paid, which has been done for the military, but not for anything else.

The list of things that are thus "essential" is short, and does not contain all the things we'd like it to contain. I'd like Head Start to keep operating through the shutdown, what are the chances I'll get my wish?

What the Obama Administration is doing is no different than what previous administrations have done. Previous Administrations have intentionally dicked the public by "closing" as much federal land as possible to make a point. I am just wondering why they think it works.

Because it does: it makes people aware that federal land does not maintain or patrol itself, that it is not FREE, in the sense of "no such thing as a free lunch." If we want the federal government to protect and preserve property, land, or people, we must PAY for it.

If we refuse to pay, the government will come to a screeching halt, even the parts of it that you might fondly imagine the government isn't involved in.

The shutdown is not "fake", major segments of the US Federal government really are shut down.

The statistics I have seen have thatn at least 80% of all regular federal expenditures are still being made. Now, about half of all federal monies go to pay non-discresionary items (interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Welfare, & SCHIP). While this makes the 80% figure disingenuous, a 60% figure would not be.

Broomstick and you have different definitions of "major segments," I think. Broomstick is talking about things, not expenditures- programs that require labor and effort, and which cannot occur if no one is being paid to do them.

The government still has to write certain checks- but if you call to ask a question about an irregularity on your check, you may find no one there to pick up the phone.

Also, Obamacare is not yet proven to be a boondoogle. One of the reasons for the shutdown is the fear on the Right that it won't be a boondoggle.

One thing that no one on the left has answered yet is this:

With the employer mandate having been unilatterally delayed by the administration (and the administation alone) for a full year (so it goes into effect on 2015-01-01 instead of 2014-01-01), why is the individual mandate still in place to start in 2014?

I don't know; I'd suggest asking an administration press release. It's a good question.

The keep kids fit website doesn't require the frequent updates and maintenance of the Amber Alert system, so basically you can just leave the first website up to run on momentum, as it were, and the second goes down because the necessary support personnel aren't available, having been sent home.

And yet, I can't get to the NASA Technical Reports Server, which shouldn't need a lot of maintenance if new files are not being uploaded.

Take it up with NASA.

Pre-post edit: it seems that public/news pressure has forced the administration to reactivate the Amber Alert site. The fact that it came back up already would imply that there was no reason for it to be down in the first place except for maybe some directive to make this as painful as possible.

Or, more likely, there was a directive that said:

"All webmasters, if you foresee the need to maintain your site and won't be here, shut it down."

That order applies indiscriminately, but is very likely to be given during the scramble to cope with a shutdown. Unfortunately, it applies to some websites the public reasonably wants to keep open.

So now, some webmaster is working without pay to keep Amber Alerts going. Hopefully he'll get paid back afterwards. Which is right and proper- but it hardly represents evil intent on the government's part that Amber Alerts were not already on the list of things to keep going when they can't pay anyone.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

One thing that no one on the left has answered yet is this:

With the employer mandate having been unilatterally delayed by the administration (and the administation alone) for a full year (so it goes into effect on 2015-01-01 instead of 2014-01-01), why is the individual mandate still in place to start in 2014?

I don't see why the delay of one part should require the delay of another part. The onus is on you to establish why the individual mandate should be delayed, not the other way around.

Anyway, the reason why the individual mandate shouldn't be delayed is because there is no benefit in delaying it. Expanding the insurance pool is necessary to compensate for coverage being extended to people with pre-existing conditions, and the "penalty" for not having insurance is only a maximum of $95. So I don't think that delaying the mandate serves any purpose other than stubbornly obstructing the function of the ACA.

The employer mandate only affects a very small minority of businesses whereas the individual mandate will apply to a very large portion of uninsured Americans. The success of the ACA is reliant on the participation levels of the currently uninsured. It makes perfect sense to stand firm on the individual mandate while waiving the employer mandate as a negotiating token.

[TimothyC]

I don't see why the delay of one part should require the delay of another part. The onus is on you to establish why the individual mandate should be delayed, not the other way around.

Because the change was done totally by administration fiat. Obama caused part of it to be delayed - and the best reason I can come up with is so that it doesn't have an impact on buisnesses prior to the 2014 election.

Anyway, the reason why the individual mandate shouldn't be delayed is because there is no benefit in delaying it. Expanding the insurance pool is necessary to compensate for coverage being extended to people with pre-existing conditions, and the "penalty" for not having insurance is only a maximum of $95. So I don't think that delaying the mandate serves any purpose other than stubbornly obstructing the function of the ACA.

If the ACA's mandates/taxes (hey, that's what SCOTUS says they are) are such a good thing, why was the employer mandate pushed back a year?

I don't know; I'd suggest asking an administration press release. It's a good question.

The 'official' reason was to give employers time to impliment the processes to cover people, which just doesn't pass the sniff test for me - not with the individual mandate still in place.

Take it up with NASA.

I have, as usual sent off emails to my senators and representatives. I think they are getting tired of hearing from me on NTRS following it's shutdown earlier this year.

Or, more likely, there was a directive that said:

"All webmasters, if you foresee the need to maintain your site and won't be here, shut it down."

I really would like to read a lot of the directives related to this shutdown, if only to make it more clear exactly what is going on.

So now, some webmaster is working without pay to keep Amber Alerts going. Hopefully he'll get paid back afterwards. Which is right and proper- but it hardly represents evil intent on the government's part that Amber Alerts were not already on the list of things to keep going when they can't pay anyone.

The point was that the site near and dear to FLOTUS' heart was still up while other sites that are considered more important to others are closed. And yes, I do hope that everyone who's working without pay get their back pay when the government shutdown ends, but that's up to Harry Reid - who hasn't done anything following the shutdown's start.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'll try to explain the individual mandate. Using small words.

If people who are expensive to pay for use a service, costs have to go up. If only the expensive people sign up, cost go up more. If everyone signs up, the costs get spread. This means you pay less.

Why delay the employer mandate? Because the Democrats are deep-throating big business, too. Simple as that.

[Replicant]

Are we seriously arguing about if or if not it's fair for the President to actually shut down the stuff he has the authority to shut down during a government shutdown? Is it really being argued that one part of a debate, the losing part, should be allowed to collapse the structure of governance in this country and not have to see any consequences from that action? That the President of the opposition should bend over backwards to keep open the things people like to use that the government does?

Leaving aside if you think it's nice to do or not, which is pretty subjective, in a fight that's gotten so bad that the losing half of a debate has decided to flip the chessboard in rage, isn't it entirely fair for the ramifications for those actions to reach public attention?

If people really think the government does "nothing good" and has no role in maintaining the things we love, isn't shutting those down a good way to demonstrate the value of good governance? How can we expect to answer one party shutting down the government if not by making their actions inconvenient? Isn't that the very definition of fair play?

No we are arguing the validity of the administration "closing" facilities that technically never open nor close like the open air field that house the WW2 Memorial.

Or here is another good one.

In South Dakota they are putting orange cones out on the road to block access to stops on the highway where you can see Mount Rushmore.

[Replicant]

I don't see why the delay of one part should require the delay of another part. The onus is on you to establish why the individual mandate should be delayed, not the other way around.

Because the change was done totally by administration fiat. Obama caused part of it to be delayed - and the best reason I can come up with is so that it doesn't have an impact on buisnesses prior to the 2014 election.

Anyway, the reason why the individual mandate shouldn't be delayed is because there is no benefit in delaying it. Expanding the insurance pool is necessary to compensate for coverage being extended to people with pre-existing conditions, and the "penalty" for not having insurance is only a maximum of $95. So I don't think that delaying the mandate serves any purpose other than stubbornly obstructing the function of the ACA.

If the ACA's mandates/taxes (hey, that's what SCOTUS says they are) are such a good thing, why was the employer mandate pushed back a year?

I don't know; I'd suggest asking an administration press release. It's a good question.

The 'official' reason was to give employers time to impliment the processes to cover people, which just doesn't pass the sniff test for me - not with the individual mandate still in place.

Take it up with NASA.

I have, as usual sent off emails to my senators and representatives. I think they are getting tired of hearing from me on NTRS following it's shutdown earlier this year.

Or, more likely, there was a directive that said:

"All webmasters, if you foresee the need to maintain your site and won't be here, shut it down."

I really would like to read a lot of the directives related to this shutdown, if only to make it more clear exactly what is going on.

So now, some webmaster is working without pay to keep Amber Alerts going. Hopefully he'll get paid back afterwards. Which is right and proper- but it hardly represents evil intent on the government's part that Amber Alerts were not already on the list of things to keep going when they can't pay anyone.

The point was that the site near and dear to FLOTUS' heart was still up while other sites that are considered more important to others are closed. And yes, I do hope that everyone who's working without pay get their back pay when the government shutdown ends, but that's up to Harry Reid - who hasn't done anything following the shutdown's start.

Congress has already passed a bill that says furloughed employees will receive back pay.

[Broomstick]

With the employer mandate having been unilatterally delayed by the administration (and the administation alone) for a full year (so it goes into effect on 2015-01-01 instead of 2014-01-01), why is the individual mandate still in place to start in 2014?

Because there are 45+ million people without health insurance at all in this country other than emergency care, and since we, as a society are going to treat those people in the end when it's a life-threatening emergency we're going to pay for them one way or another. By getting them into the system BEFORE they're on the point of dying (which is when the ER care kicks in) it will be a fuck of a lot cheaper all around. And, oh yes, less chance of death and/or permanent disability.

Of course that has to do with things like ethics as opposed to money so maybe that just doesn't register for some folks.

Pre-post edit: it seems that public/news pressure has forced the administration to reactivate the Amber Alert site. The fact that it came back up already would imply that there was no reason for it to be down in the first place except for maybe some directive to make this as painful as possible.

Either that, or some people have been ordered back to work without payment for the duration so that site can stay up. Or don't you get it that there is a shitload of people working without getting paid during this?

Are we seriously arguing about if or if not it's fair for the President to actually shut down the stuff he has the authority to shut down during a government shutdown?

Apparently that's TimothyC's position.

[Broomstick]

And yet, I can't get to the NASA Technical Reports Server, which shouldn't need a lot of maintenance if new files are not being uploaded.

Take it up with NASA.

That might be quite a trick - isn't NASA something like 98% shut down right now? I wouldn't be surprised if no one is answering the phone or e-mail right now.

WAAAGH! The uninformed can't call up to complain about the shut down because no one is answering the phone due to the shutdown!

Call/e-mail your goddamned representatives and senators (if you're a US citizen) - we know THEY are getting paid and still at work, and better yet, they're the ones who can actually do something about this mess. I have - have you?

[NettiWelho]

Even a website not requiring any regular maintenance may need maintenance due to hostile outside action, so it could be perfectly reasonable to take down otherwise stable high functionality sites with possible security holes to prevent attacks during a time when the admins are not present to act to intrusions.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. Otherwise, the feds might come back to the Amber Alert site to find that it's been defaced by some bunch of crazed perverts from 4chan or something. Even a slim possibility of that is a concern.

I don't know; I'd suggest asking an administration press release. It's a good question.

The 'official' reason was to give employers time to impliment the processes to cover people, which just doesn't pass the sniff test for me - not with the individual mandate still in place.

Could you expand on why it doesn't pass the sniff test to you?

Take it up with NASA.

I have, as usual sent off emails to my senators and representatives. I think they are getting tired of hearing from me on NTRS following it's shutdown earlier this year.

Well, NASA is much more likely to know why a specific NASA server is shut down than Obama is; if Obama gave a shit about NASA one way or the other we'd be prepping for the first Orion capsule tests by now.

Or, more likely, there was a directive that said:
"All webmasters, if you foresee the need to maintain your site and won't be here, shut it down."

I really would like to read a lot of the directives related to this shutdown, if only to make it more clear exactly what is going on.

It'd make interesting reading from a certain point of view- might well be a good research project for someone with a lot of time on their hands in the future.

So now, some webmaster is working without pay to keep Amber Alerts going. Hopefully he'll get paid back afterwards. Which is right and proper- but it hardly represents evil intent on the government's part that Amber Alerts were not already on the list of things to keep going when they can't pay anyone.

The point was that the site near and dear to FLOTUS' heart was still up while other sites that are considered more important to others are closed. And yes, I do hope that everyone who's working without pay get their back pay when the government shutdown ends, but that's up to Harry Reid - who hasn't done anything following the shutdown's start.

Broomstick already suggested at least one obvious reason why the site near and dear to Mrs. Obama's heart might still be running, which have NOTHING TO DO with it being Mrs. Obama's pet. Hell, do you seriously think Michelle Obama would want her husband to order Amber Alerts closed down and her weight loss site not closed down? I'd want evidence before believing she was that much of a sociopath.

Just off the top of my head, if the server is located at the White House, then obviously the fact that their power, Internet, and IT services are still functional for perfectly logical reasons has something to do with it.

---

No we are arguing the validity of the administration "closing" facilities that technically never open nor close like the open air field that house the WW2 Memorial.

That was already addressed- the Park Service is responsible for keeping those sites clean and secure, and they now have no staff to do so. In a vague hope of deterring random litterers (or outright vandals) from sticking the NPS with an expensive cleaning bill after the shutdown, they have fenced off the monument.

Why is this a surprise? Local park services act the same way; that's why you often can't get into suburban parks after dark- to keep them from becoming gathering-grounds for riff-raff. Since the local park service (and the local police) lack the manpower to effectively patrol the parks in the dark, or to respond effectively to crimes there, they close the place off.

Or here is another good one.

In South Dakota they are putting orange cones out on the road to block access to stops on the highway where you can see Mount Rushmore.

The only article I've seen about that makes it very unclear why the orange cones are up, and there is ZERO evidence suggesting that the order to do this traces clear back up to the White House.

Do you know what? If I were the head of the Park Service right now, I might order things like that shut down, on my own initiative, to prove an essential point: do not fuck with the Park Service. I wouldn't even need Obama to issue any special orders, I just wouldn't go out of my way to run down the list of thousands of individual tiny facilities the Park Service controls or operates to pick out the ones that will hopefully be fine if the Park Service leaves them completely unattended for... um... however many days this shutdown lasts, given that it could easily last for two or three weeks, or even a month.

By doing what they have done, the Republicans have fucked not only with government programs you dislike (like good elementary schools for poor children), but with programs you do like (like national parks). If you can't deal with that, you need to figure out a way to hold your own side accountable, rather than trying to shift all the blame into this massive urge to pick nits about how Obama is a crazy evil bastard for not remembering to exempt the scenic overlooks in South Dakota from a general order closing National Park sites in the middle of a major crisis of governance.

I mean, excuse me, but maybe he's more worried about things like disaster response and keeping the intelligence services running and so on?

[Broomstick]

I would also like to point out that the Amber Alert system, that is, the nationwide system for disseminating such alerts, was never shut down, only 1 website maintained by the Justice Department. So Amber Alerts could still be issued, with the usual broadcast notifications and involvement of local police forces in search and recovery. That never stopped being the case. They just took down one particular website. All the other websites associated with the system (the states are involved in this, too) were still up and running and accessible. If, however, you didn't know the JD site was largely information/directing towards those other sites yeah, I could see were you might get the impression the entire system was shut down.

Several media sources have been clarifying this matter this afternoon.

[Rogue 9]

Something for everyone to consider:

Michael Lind on Salon.com

In that light, everything the Republicans are doing makes a lot of sense and the only way to stop them is hammer them back as hard as possible and take absolutely no prisoners when dealing with them.

This is the kind of article that people like me, who don't know the details of American political history, read and go, "Whoa, that is really instructive, if it's true!". And then go, "Okay, how the fuck do I find out if it's true?"

I suggest the book entitled The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader, edited by James Loewen and Edward Sebesta, which is an extensive collection of primary source documents from the people in question (antebellum slaveowners, Confederate seceders, and post-Reconstruction Southern political and social leaders) illustrating in their own words their goals of maintaining their social dominance (and, before the end of the Civil War, slavery) and their strategies for doing so. Alternatively, you could look in the Library or History forums of this very board.

I started to read through it but got to this point:

" For all its Jacksonian populist rhetoric, the Newest Right is no more a rebellion of the white working class than was the original faux-populist Jacksonian movement, led by rich slaveowners like Andrew Jackson and agents of New York banks like Martin Van Buren."

And decided that if your willing to compare your opponents to slave-owners then I am not going to trust you to be very objective.

Says the man who just got done comparing Obama to the Nazis for closing national parks.

[amigocabal]

Are we seriously arguing about if or if not it's fair for the President to actually shut down the stuff he has the authority to shut down during a government shutdown? Is it really being argued that one part of a debate, the losing part, should be allowed to collapse the structure of governance in this country and not have to see any consequences from that action? That the President of the opposition should bend over backwards to keep open the things people like to use that the government does?

Leaving aside if you think it's nice to do or not, which is pretty subjective, in a fight that's gotten so bad that the losing half of a debate has decided to flip the chessboard in rage, isn't it entirely fair for the ramifications for those actions to reach public attention?

If people really think the government does "nothing good" and has no role in maintaining the things we love, isn't shutting those down a good way to demonstrate the value of good governance? How can we expect to answer one party shutting down the government if not by making their actions inconvenient? Isn't that the very definition of fair play?

How does that justify the shutdown of private facilities not run or funded by the feds? Indeed, this happened to two places which were not shut down when Clinton or Reagan was President.

[TimothyC]

Congress has already passed a bill that says furloughed employees will receive back pay.

The House has passed it, the Senate has not (even though the President said he will sign it when it reaches his desk).

Because there are 45+ million people without health insurance at all in this country other than emergency care, and since we, as a society are going to treat those people in the end when it's a life-threatening emergency we're going to pay for them one way or another. By getting them into the system BEFORE they're on the point of dying (which is when the ER care kicks in) it will be a fuck of a lot cheaper all around. And, oh yes, less chance of death and/or permanent disability.

Keeping people healthier is a laudable goal, as is improving access to health services. Given the above, why then did the employer mandate get pushed back?

Apparently that's TimothyC's position.

I'm angry that he's playing games with the system. I'm angry he's trying to shut down things that he shouldn't be (such as the viewing areas around Mount Rushmore).

Could you expand on why it doesn't pass the sniff test to you?

Companies have had years to prepare for how the ACA will effect their benefit offerings (everyone should have been preparing for it to be upheld prior to the SCOTUS decision, because if it wasn't then for a lot of companies it would have been a waste of time and effort, but no other impacts). With the standardization of what policies must cover under the ACA, there are fewer levels of packages that can be offered - which means that there are even fewer decisions to make now under the ACA than there were before the ACA.

Combined with the fact that it pushes the onset of the employer mandate out past the 2014 elections (so any possible impacts won't be felt by the time we vote for congress again), it reeks of political pandering.

[Alyeska]

I'm angry that he's playing games with the system. I'm angry he's trying to shut down things that he shouldn't be (such as the viewing areas around Mount Rushmore).

You are blaming Obama over some fucking traffic cones in the Dakotas? You know NOTHING about the circumstances of those traffic cones. You don't know who put them there, where they are, or why they were ordered there. But you're real fucking Angry At Obama for it.

This is a classic "Thanks Obama" internet meme right now.

[Zaune]

You know, even I have to admit that part of the shutdown comes off as a bit petty, though given the circumstances I really can't blame whoever actually is responsible for it.

[Simon_Jester]

How does that justify the shutdown of private facilities not run or funded by the feds? Indeed, this happened to two places which were not shut down when Clinton or Reagan was President.

I can think of several reasons- say, the federal government closing down all the roads leading into the area because they are part and parcel of a national park? It's not safe or wise to stay in a place where road traffic is barred and the authorities can't come to help you because they aren't there.

Without knowing a lot of details, and I do mean a LOT, I think the smart thing to do is suspend judgment about those two places. As someone once noted in my presence, Obama is not Cobra Commander. Nor is he Snidely Whiplash. He doesn't spend his time specifically plotting to close down individual people's homes or anything. It is far more likely that certain broad directives ("close down anything you can't secure") have this time been interpreted to mean "close off access to this private residence, ask them to move for the duration rather than leaving them alone in the middle of a totally unpatrolled howling wildnerness." Whereas previously they were not, for reasons that have very little to do with either those private facilities in particular, or Obama's broad policies in general.

Keeping people healthier is a laudable goal, as is improving access to health services. Given the above, why then did the employer mandate get pushed back?

Corporations are lazy and donate money to the DNC. Also, Obama may actually be trying to make sure the exchange system is up and running more or less before forcing corporations to participate, in hopes that this will make integrating them into the system easier.

Apparently that's TimothyC's position.

I'm angry that he's playing games with the system. I'm angry he's trying to shut down things that he shouldn't be (such as the viewing areas around Mount Rushmore).

As noted, I'm honestly not sure he is- it reminds me of the idiots I've seen rambling about how a general needs to be tried and thrown in prison because some sergeant in his division went berserk and shot a family of civilians. There are several layers of bureaucracy between the White House and the guy laying orange cones in South Dakota, and it is grossly premature to assume we know anything about what orders passed up and down those layers.

Could you expand on why it doesn't pass the sniff test to you?

Companies have had years to prepare for how the ACA will effect their benefit offerings (everyone should have been preparing for it to be upheld prior to the SCOTUS decision, because if it wasn't then for a lot of companies it would have been a waste of time and effort, but no other impacts). With the standardization of what policies must cover under the ACA, there are fewer levels of packages that can be offered - which means that there are even fewer decisions to make now under the ACA than there were before the ACA.

Combined with the fact that it pushes the onset of the employer mandate out past the 2014 elections (so any possible impacts won't be felt by the time we vote for congress again), it reeks of political pandering.

I suspect a lot of corporations did NOT prepare, because they expected ACA to get shot down, or their CEOs were actively hoping it would be. Do you know what business leaders have said on the issue?

Personally, I also think you are overestimating the degree to which the employer mandate will hurt business; a lot of businesses already pay for employee health insurance, after all.

[Dominus Atheos]

Given the litigious nature of some Americans, I'd expect the highway viewing area is an issue of liability and liability insurance. If someone gets hurt while in the viewing area, the government might be expected to pay for their medical care (ironic), which they can't because they have no money.

[Zaune]

Given the litigious nature of some Americans, I'd expect the highway viewing area is an issue of liability and liability insurance. If someone gets hurt while in the viewing area, the government might be expected to pay for their medical care (ironic), which they can't because they have no money.

Even if the viewing area is normally totally unmanned...? Wait, never mind, this involves personal injury lawsuits. Logic and internal consistency are no match for sufficiently expensive lawyers.

[atg]

Even a website not requiring any regular maintenance may need maintenance due to hostile outside action, so it could be perfectly reasonable to take down otherwise stable high functionality sites with possible security holes to prevent attacks during a time when the admins are not present to act to intrusions.

The shutdown of whatever server farm (elecricity/cooling/server hardware maintenance costs) the website lives on will probably be the cause rather than maintenance of the site itself.