« Sabotage and Obamacare | Main | The explain it to my daughter Friday Open thread »

October 02, 2013

Comments

Few on the left will buy this

I don't buy it.

I've seen horsesh*t more than comparable to whatever shenanigans were involved in passing the ACA, including John Freaking Boehner literally handing out checks on the House floor at vote time.

For example.

And the (D)'s have not, at any point, responded by trying to shut the damned government down. Or, by threatening to default on paying the damned bills.

This (the tactics of the tea party (R)'s, not your comment here) is utter BS.

There's no end to the ugliness involved in getting stuff passed, and neither side is any stranger to it. But for good or ill, our process is our process.

If you don't want to play, stay home. If you want to play, you have to accept the fact that you don't always win.

If you don't win, you don't get to turn the board over and set fire to the pieces.

I thoroughly disagree with your point here.

Maybe the Dems should have staged a shut down over the prescription coverage shit the R's pulled. Or over Iraq? Yes? No? After all if there is some glimmer of justification for the Republican sabotage of America because their fee fees got hurt over how the ACA was made, shouldn't the Dems have sabotaged us all over how the decision to something far more reprehensible was made?

I think it is quite likely that an OWs representative would propose unrealistic legislation, but that's not an excuse for rightwing fanatics shutting down the economy. It isn't even a mitigation.

And rightwing fanatics wouldn't be in that position to do the harm they are doing if it wasn't for the people who enable them.

I've been yearning for some good, old fashioned false equivalency. Yum!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-building-a-permanent-republican-minority/2013/10/01/bde96d78-2ac7-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

Congressional Republicans are sabotaging the economy and the legislative process because their fee fees got hurt over how ACA was passed. They are throwing a temper tantrum because they represent a minority of entitled fringers in the population--people whose views are outside the mainstream and thus can't be imposed on the rest of us through the normal use of the federal legislative process.

I meant "aren't" in that first sentence!

Folks are pretty stirred up and talking past each other as never before.

And you blow right in here to talk past us...how, er, refreshing.

Few on the left will buy this...

Actually, none will, because what followed was nothing short of a pack of lies and misrepresentations.

Obviously you are quite busy, because you were really quite far off your game here.

What we are seeing here is the minority party throwing an ill-tempered hissy fit accompanied by what can only be seen as political blackmail. Uncivil? Really?

The GOP started this, and I believe when all is said and done Obama will have hung them out to dry.

"What we are seeing today is the counter to the means, manner and method by which ACA was passed."

THAT sums up Republicans perfectly. You know WHY the ACA passed in the way it did? BECAUSE YOU LOST! Your side lost the election which HAS CONSEQUENCES! The fact that your political opponents WON means the decisions they make are LEGITIMATE! And that legitimacy seems to be what ALL of 'your side' FAILS TO RECOGNIZE.

YOU ARE BREAKING THE BEST REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE THAT YOUR OPPONENTS ARE REAL PEOPLE.

Awesome display of caps-lock malfunction there, Berial.

There's a pretty strong correlation between the way Republican politicians and tacticians think and the way bullies function.

Bullies have difficulty conceptualizing the legitimacy of decisions made by anyone but themselves. They feel entitled to be the decision makers and respect decision making processes only when it results in them getting their way. They confabulate being heard with being agreed with--they can't understand that someone might hear their views but not agree. They are more likely to harm other people to get their way than the other personality types because of their sense of being entitled to get their way. They always see themselves as victims of unfair treatment. Either that, or they blame the real victim, the target of their abuse, as being a person who deserves to be hurt by others.

That's how a lot of two years olds function, too. Maybe bullies and Congressional Republicans are just people who never matured beyond the two year old level.

Maybe bullies and Congressional Republicans are just people who never matured beyond the two year old level.

In a sense, politically, a lot of congressional Republicans, particularly House Republicans, are two-year-olds. They haven't been at it for very long don't understand how the sausage gets made. Shame on the guys who do know for being too timid to get the kids in line. They need political-adult supervision, especially when they can shut down, even partially, the freakin' Federal Government of the United States of America.

Sheesh...

Caps-lock problems...Meh
Can't fix it anyway, so...I meant it to be like that. Yeah..that's the ticket.

As for all congressional Republicans being bullies? Maybe, but not all of them and that doesn't explain the overall point of view of the conservatives in American that vote for them.

Somewhere along the line the tribalism on the right has gotten out of control. Instead of seeing Democrats as fellow Americans they seem to see them as 'the other'. As 'other' as they see say the Russians. When you hear things like 'I want my country back', it indicates they think that the only truly legitimate source of political activity runs through them and ONLY them.

They can be for blackmail like the House is pulling because the 'other side' didn't legitimately earn their right to exert power. Filibustering nearly everything possible to filibuster is okay because the 'other side' doesn't deserve an actual hearing.

I find nothing shocking in the psychopathic behavior of the hostage-takers.

It is merely confirmational.

Wasn't it Newt Gingrich's hurt fee-fees over airline seating that precipitated the last shutdown in the 1990's? I forget now.

Interesting that both the middle and the left are implicated in this shock-effect.

That can't be good.

I'd like a link to a single far-Right hostage taker in the dead letter that is the U.S. Congress or in the "media" who has cited hurt fee-fees over the manner of the passage of the ACA as motivation for shutting down the government and defaulting on the national debt.

I haven't heard a peep about that line of reaso..... uh, bullsh*t.

I would seek out legislative secrecy, bullying, lying, dick-s*cking, and malfeasance in instances noted above wherein Republican majorities f*cked-up the sausage-making, but I'm bored now.

If the completely ineffective and camping-obsessed OWS ever does make electoral inroads (Elizabeth Warren? Please. She has the pluck to take full credit for her electoral success with the half percent of the OWS vote she might have garnered against centerfold and arms merchant, what's his dead face), I hope they are as armed or more so than the Tea Party.

Unfortunately, nearly all of them seemed to be pacifists of one stripe or another.

Big mistake.

And speaking of Warren, I hope she is making a list of the massive sections of government she wants shut down or she will shut down the government and default on the national debt.

My demand is that I want the government shut down and the debt defaulted on or I will shut down the government and default on the debt, hopefully wiping out Rick Perry's money market holdings.

Meanwhile, arm coyotes.

Last night I was enjoying a cheap meal in a restaurant and there was guy a few tables away who called his waitress over and started haranguing her about the fact that his chips and salsa has not arrived at the table in a timely manner and he objected to the secrecy with which the salsa had been prepared, seeing as how there was a wall between the kitchen and the dining room.

The volume got pretty loud, and pretty soon, he threatened for all in earshot to hear that he was going to abolish the waitresses' healthcare options, close down the government, and default on the national debt if he didn't get HIS recipe for salsa delivered to his table, pronto.

The waitress somehow managed to squeeze a question in: "What is your recipe, sir?" and the guy sputtered: "I don't have one, beyond making sure that lump on your breast metastasizes free of health insurance."

At that point I got up and sauntered over to see I could facilitate some understanding, perchance to compromise, but once I got there the guy glared at me and was not particularly forthcoming and he made a sudden move with one hand under the table, could have been adjusting his napkin or checking his fly, not sure, but seeing as how I live in a concealed weapon state, I grabbed the back of his head and smashed his face into the bowl of salsa in question on the table in front of him and gave him a thorough salsa wash and rinse, and let him raise his head and then I shot him in the mouth for good measure, hoping the addition of a couple of quarts of his blood might have flavored the salsa to his liking.

The surrounding patrons, mostly those who have a middling position when it comes to salsa, applauded the quick dispatch and threw tortilla chips at his corpse, which is probably still sitting there as a cautionary regarding etiquette, which was one of the reasons the concealed gun law was passed .. to create a more polite society.

I took his two little kids home with me and I'm going to raise them to be in the middle in all things and if they don't like that, I'll just shut down the government and default on the debt and they may register their shock all day and see if I give a f*ck.

Look, the ACA passed.

If the (R)'s were unhappy with that, there were a number of remedies available to address that.

They could attempt to repeal it. Depending on who's counting, that was done 11, or 17, or 21, or 38, or 42 times. Long story short, that particular avenue was attempted and was unsuccessful.

They could attempt to replace it's champion in the White House by running a candidate who was explicitly against it. That was attempted, and was unsuccessful.

They could challenge it on Constitutional grounds. That was attempted in numerous places, on various grounds, culminating in a SCOTUS case. Which the opponents of ACA lost.

You could attempt to defund it by proposing a budget which doesn't include money for it. That was attempted, and was rejected by the Senate. So, once again, the opponents of the ACA were unsuccessful.

They lost. That's all. It happens. Believe me when I say that people who hold political, economic, and social positions in the general neighborhood of mine are quite familiar with that phenomenon.

What makes our form of government work AT ALL is the willingness of the folks who live under it to submit to the process. If you don't do that, it doesn't work.

We are embarking into "doesn't work" territory. To some folks, that is some sweet sweet music. To the vast majority of folks, it is going to suck, quite a lot.

So, thanks for nothing, tea partiers. Hope they enjoy their 15 minutes.

But they can kiss my behind if they think their tantrum has earned them some kind of quid pro quo.

I hope Obama et al continue to tell them to pound sand. They wanted this, they can own it.

...I can see where a radicalized conservative movement would come together and, if given the legislative opportunity, would fight what they saw as fire with their own brand of it.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that I do "buy it." What am I buying - an explanation or a justification? Is this supposed to be why it happened, or is this supposed to be why it's right?

I wonder, whether Obama is just as (relatively) calm as he is now because he knows that he can pull an emergency break should the default actually happen. It's not a nice option and may lead to a SCOTUS rebuke and/or impeachment but that would still be a less bad option than a full system crash. On the other side some GOPster strategists may hope that they can get Obama to pull that lever too early. In the former case he may be seen as sacrificing his presidency to save the state from the madmen, in the latter as callously breaking the constitution because he ran out of legal tools after getting outmaneuvred by his opponents and was not willing to admit defeat.
This leaves out of course the still unanswered question whether POTUS has the right to do this or not. It has been discussed but due to lack of precedent not yet decided. Most would wish that precedent can be avoided again. Let's not fool ourselves, this is as much about setting precedent (does the ultimate blackmail work or not?) as about the concrete budget fight.

Shorter MckT, though I realize he's doing a little pro bono internet fluffing for the defendant, or is it the plaintiff, who can tell?:

“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

The "something" will be nothing, and if it is "something", I want the government shut down, the debt defaulted on, and I want the United States to secede from Texas with the borders between the enemies embargoed and walled and I want of one our Navy fleets stationed along Texas' southern coast to sink anything that moves.

I don't want the nuclear silos left in Texas decommissioned, but rather I'd like the missiles launched but with their trajectories reconfigured so they go straight up and right back down from whence they were launched like the anvil in a Roadrunner cartoon.

I want Rick Perry and roughly 200 of the leading lights in the Texas Republican Party, and from what I hear about the Overton Window down there, we might have to include several dozen Democrats as well ... where was I ... spavined, disambiguated (that could be counted as a pre-existing condition), and their dead mouths filled with salt and then the remains transported to the new Smithsonian shooting range where Americans (that would be me) may take target practice with a rich arsenal of cool killing machines provided free, or ...

..... I want the government shut down and the debt defaulted (I excluded that dangling preposition "on" as a cost-saving measure).

I want both to happen, so start sucking on it, Rep. Stutzman.

It is what it is.

Charles Pierce answer to Stutzman:

"Have a cookie, Marlin. Have a cookie and go play with your toes."


"And now, in the interest of equal time, here is a message from the National Institute of Pancakes: It reads, and I quote, “F*ck waffles.”

George Carlin quote, lifted from Balloon Juice.

I wonder, whether Obama is just as (relatively) calm as he is now because he knows that he can pull an emergency break should the default actually happen.

Are you referring to the mega-coin, in the event the debt ceiling doesn't get raised? (That option doesn't solve a lack of appropriation.)

The MSM doesn't much cover issues where liberals, and ONLY liberals, think there's no "there" there.

This works out conveniently for you; when the MSM covers a conservative story it proves that it's got some backing in reality, and when the MSM doesn't cover a conservative story that proves nothing. Whereas for liberals, if the MSM covers a story that proves nothing (since they supposedly push baseless liberal stories) and if the MSM fails to cover a liberal story that means it's clearly false.

Im sure Id love to have a methodology of media analysis that ended with 'you are always right big C, you da man'. Only, that particular cocoon seems a little to obvious for even me to inhabit.

Ironically, when you show up at one of these parks, and it's closed, you'll blame the Republicans for it.

BREAKING: White House Ordering Hundreds of Privately Run, Privately Funded Parks to Close

These are privately run parks which are tennants on federal land. They not only take no money from the treasury, they pay rent to it. They've never been closed in any previous government shutdown, because they're not the government.

IOW, Obama is shutting down a revenue source to maximize pain from the shutdown.

And I'm sure you'll find some way to blame Republicans for this, rather than admit that Obama is managing the shutdown so as to cause as much pain as possible, even where he has to go out of his way to cause it.

Federal Land?

That's my land.

Get the F8ck off my land.

So you like renters now?

I thought you said renters do nothing but trash property.

Fire at will. Evict at will.

Your rules.

View it as a furlough without pay or health insurance.

Feel better now?

What we are seeing today is the counter to the means, manner and method by which ACA was passed.

Funny that this didn't happen, say, after the ACA was passed. Or, say, after the 2010 election. If this was a reaction to *how* the ACA was passed and not the contents of the bill, Id expect action *at the time*, not 4 years on.
Whereas, if I were a GOPer crapping my pants about a new entitlement that people are likely going to really like & not want to give up, this is *exactly* the moment Id expect a hissy fit to end all hissy fits.
[Whereas if the GOP actually thought the ACA is going to be a train wreck, then this isn't the last-ditch effort, because it'll be easy to remove it once it reveals itself in all of its train-wreck glory].

not to mention the outright lies we suspected then but have now confirmed(no taxes, you get to keep your doctor, if you like your insurance, you get to keep that too and much other BS that was untrue and known to be untrue)

You suspected it then and have only now had it confirmed, but also knew it was untrue at the time? And yet, it's a friggin law that's written down, so &$^# me if I can figure out how you could not know what was in it.

To add just a bit more to this,from a completely different angle, if the OWS movement had managed to achieve the same electoral success as the Tea Party, we well might be having a very differnt, yet very similar conversation.

SHHHHH. Everyone, it's the rarely seen "hypothetical tu quoque"- it's unusual for such a fragile, unsupportable creature to appear in the wild like this. Oddly, this flimsy yet adorable organism can survive even the harshest conditions due to its infinite flexibility, yet it cannot stand a moment's scrutiny without collapsing into a puddle of goo.

Hsh, I was referring to the hypothetical that Obama could interprete a certain amendment to the constitution as giving him the authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own should the full faith and credit be questioned by congressional inaction or blockade. To my knowledge Obama has beeen evasive on this while Pelosi first answered 'No' and then went for evasion too. As said, there is no precedent to decide whether that is a legitimate emergency measure by the executive branch or a blatant breach of the constitution, and no sane person would wish to be the one to set that precedent.

Ironically, when you show up at one of these parks, and it's closed, you'll blame the Republicans for it.

Surprise!!

When you shut down the government, it turns out to be a great big PITA for a lot of people.

Who'd a thunk it?

For those who still opt for satirical entertainment over violence:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/540661

First eight minutes or so were like a tickling break during a poison gas attack.

These are privately run parks which are tennants on federal land. They not only take no money from the treasury, they pay rent to it.

otoh, operating a campground in a federal park where the park staff have been cut to a bare minimum seems to present an obvious law enforcement and safety hazard. I mean, I understand why the guy whose business this is wants to stay open, that's how he makes money. But a little critical thinking seems called for here.

Dead to rights, Brett has Obama:

However, today, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people “above the department”, which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally (editorial: Really?) close all private operations. I can only assume their intention is to artificially increase the cost of the shutdown as some sort of political ploy.

Rafael Cruz, let's say, orders his murderous caucus to take hostages.

He doesn't have a plan for the endgame.

Shame

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyPhsD1vHGk

Too bad it's all of us in the wood chipper, though I recognize that besocked foot upended into the machine in the video as a Republican appendage.

Garbage in, garbage out.

This "Fargo" meme is floating around today.

"Dead to rights, Brett has Obama."

Good. I'm glad ruthlessness in kind is recognized for once.

I'll raise Brett three wood chippers.

Watch your fingers.

non-essential operations are closed down.

the parks are non-essential operations. so, they are closed down.

if you want to visit the park, you can't.

if you're a tenant of the park, you don't have access while the park is closed.

yes, it's stupid. yes, that means that revenue that might have been received from park visitors and tenants will not be realized. yes, that means a lot of people will be inconvenienced and perhaps even materially harmed.

there will probably be a flood of lawsuits flowing from the whole thing.

all true.

and that's just the park service.

a reasonable person would look at all of that and say it's a freaking stupid idea to shut down the non-essential operations of government.

stupid, pointless, counter-productive.

that is the conclusion a reasonable person would draw.

I can only see one way that this ends with a minimum of damage:
1) Somewhere around October 14, the Speaker lets the House vote on a bill which raises the debt ceiling. Nothing else, just that. It passes (and quickly passes the Senate and gets signed by the President).
2) The Republican caucus revolts, and offers up a new Speaker. (Who maybe fails to get enough votes to be elected, but that's a different discussion.)
3) The shutdown continues for a couple of months. Eventually, enough Republican Congressmen's constituents (specifically those who vote in Republican primaries) decide that the pain is simply not worth it. And a clean CR gets voted thru.

Will this cause a lot of pain, and damage, to a lot of people? Yes. But the country as a whole can recover from that. (Unlike a default.) Then the Congress can start going thru the budget for next year, and trying to figure out what they will keep and cut in order to continue the reduction in the deficit which has been happening for the past several years.

Note that this is the best (least damaging) end that I can see. There are lots of other possibilities which are more damaging, to the nation and all of us personally. Starting with Step 1 not happening.

Words has it that all of the little Cantors shorted the stock market some days ago.

Me too, using an ETF instrument. So far, profitable. Mostly a hedge at this point.

When in America, think like an American cocksucking Republican.

Step on the poor, kick them in the short ribs, and figure the vig.

Shut the government down, default on the debt.

This keeps up, I might be able to afford my health insurance and ammo for another year.


This keeps up, I might be able to continue my health insurance for another year.

Obama is shutting down a revenue source to maximize pain from the shutdown.

from brett's link:

the Treasury could lose a few million dollars, in what is essentially free money to the government, over the course of the shutdown.

really? a *few million dollars*?

cue dr. evil.

the federal budget is not quite $4 trillion. the loss of this guy's tenant fees is not even a rounding error.

there is no need for obama or anyone else to go through any kind of secret contortions to "maximize the pain" of the shutdown. shutting down government operations is *inherently* painful. and also stupid, wasteful, expensive, inefficient, and counter-productive.

THAT IS WHY IT IS A BAD IDEA.

this guy's campground sad is not even the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

this is what the tea partiers wanted, and now they have it.

if it doesn't suit you, call your rep.

wj, see my comment on October 02, 2013 at 10:38 PM. Am I right in my recollection, or am I mixing you up with someone else? Just curious.

I'm going to call the nearest Republican rep and demand a two-fer, reinstate the private campground owner's access on my land and double funding for Obamacare, and, by the way, could you help me sign up for the exchange in my State?

After I have those concessions, I will further want the government shut down and a catastrophic debt default in perpetuity.

Rep Cantor projectiled-vomited and then covered his shorts as John Boehner, waist deep in the wood chipper, a few moments ago indicated flexibility on the debt ceiling and the Hastert Rule.

Personally, I think Boehner just wanted to juke the market a little so he can establish his own short positions at slightly higher prices.

That's how lying filth work it.

I'll maintain my hedge for now because there is something about the prospect of profiting through others suffering that makes me feel exceptional.

hsh, that was indeed me. (And I am in awe that you can remember who the other commenters were. My own memory for names is terrible!)

My problem with the bashing of liberals is that so often it was not for the follies that they believe in. But for things that they believe that seemed at least arguable and frequently perfectly reasonable.

It might have made me uncomfortable being a conservative (which I still am). But instead, it awakened me to the fact that the label "conservative" has been hijacked by radical reactionaries who have little or nothing in common with actual conservatism.

Donald Johnson at 10/2 9:39PM--

Most self-styled centrists seem to think that Truth can be found at the exact center point between the center-left and the far right. This is why liberal Democrats seem to them to be the same as rightwing crazies.
Truth has very little to do with it. But if you want to actually pass legislation, the zone of possible agreement lies near the center. This doesn't mean you have to hold centrist views. "Centrist views" sounds like an oxymoron to me; nobody has centrist views. Centrism is a governing strategy, not a political ideology. Centrism merely acknowledges that the place where enough legislators are not unhappy enough not to vote against something lies somewhere near the center.

Does this mean that you should never take a principled stand and always compromise? Of course not. But you'd better understand that it's a lot easier taking a stand against something. If you're for something, you'll need to win over the people who don't like it. By default, no action will be taken.

Centrism is stable. Using centrism, things that really need to get done get done and everything else doesn't (which sounds terrific to me). Centrism tolerates a small amount of partisanship, but mostly punishes it, pushing things back toward the center. That's a nice negative feedback regime.

But too much partisanship breeds even more extreme partisanship. That's a positive feedback regime, and it ends with complete polarization. We're there now, and we're there because centrism failed.

You may not feel that centrism is very honest. It's certainly not ideologically "pure". But is it worse than what we have now?

When do I and my family get our apology:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/03/grandstand-of-the-day/

Some Park Rangers are armed for a reason.

That Republican vermin, who hasn't apologized to 800,000 Federal employees, tens of thousands of private contractors, tens of thousands of food-stamp recipients, 50 million Americans who might require an option for affording health insurance, and for receiving his salary and healthcare while chewing out a furloughed fed employee who is not being paid, is a reason.

That Republican vermin will be kissing the end of my dick at gunpoint when the troubles start.

Centrism is dead, long live centrism.

Say a few more words over centrism's grave (the body has been in the grave since 1994, following a long illness.

Then let's get on with the war.

hsh, that was indeed me. (And I am in awe that you can remember who the other commenters were. My own memory for names is terrible!)

I think I remember you, specifically, because I ran into you at jrudkis' blog, if I'm also right about that (and I'm not thinking of another commenter who went by mw). It was jrudkis' blog through which I found Publius at Legal Fiction, and then followed Publius when he came here. Either way, you're still the guy from way, way back.

That Republican vermin will be kissing the end of my dick at gunpoint when the troubles start.

i understand that this stuff can get under your skin, but maybe it's time to re-calibrate the harsh-o-meter.

just a thought.

thanks count!

The harsh-o-meter, as measuring the quoted sentence, is a bit too high, for sure. But despite my sometimes antagonistic rhetoric on ObWi, I don't recall ever being so angry, in an almost over-the-top way, as I am now at Republicans. I rarely use the h word, but hate is something I'm pretty close to right now.

I don't see how this country can remain a peaceful place to live with what's happening right now. The Republicans are bringing the country down. Expecting people to just relax and partake in popcorn is not realistic.

RadicalModerate:
"Centrist views" sounds like an oxymoron to me; nobody has centrist views. Centrism is a governing strategy, not a political ideology.

We really do need to make a distinction here. "Centerism" is arguably a strategy. But moderation is, in fact, a political ideology with views. A moderate position may be nowhere near the "center" -- especially if you define center as midway between the bulk of the two parties. But it is a very realand viable position when it comes to the issues.

Expecting people to just relax and partake in popcorn is not realistic.

I definitely get that, I just thought that threats of oral rape at gunpoint might be a bit beyond what was called for.

We all cross the line now and then, I'm just asking that we try to remember that the lines are there.

But yeah, stuff like this (the shutdown) pisses me off.

From Balloon-Juice:
http://youtu.be/P5K7wVb6y_U

That is a man totally divorced from understanding that the decisions he makes have consequences for which HE is responsible.


And Count went WAY over the line.

I don't see how this country can remain a peaceful place to live with what's happening right now. The Republicans are bringing the country down.

It is interesting to me that polling shows even non-TP Republicans are not excited about the shutdown. It's important to remember that it's not Republicans doing this, it's a particular subset of Republicans with a specific batsh1t ideology.
My medium-term hope is that all this nuttery drives enough of a wedge between the moderates and wingers on the right to temporarily break the GOP- whereupon it can be rebuilt, less deranged. So I want to underline that we're receptive to the remaining GOP moderates (both in and out of Congress)- you don't have to vote Dem forever or join a union, but if you want to end the suicidal madness of your party you may need to cross the line or start sitting elections out until sanity returns.

And Count went WAY over the line.

Historically, the kitty has held fire for a certain brand of over-the-top rhetoric. But I've never been a fan of that, I think it muddies the lines more than it adds to the conversation.
Obviously, the kitty has a different opinion.

"You may not feel that centrism is very honest. It's certainly not ideologically "pure". But is it worse than what we have now?"

That misses the point. Yes, the centrism that we used to have when the Republican Party hadn't gone completely insane was preferable to what we have now. And willingness to compromise is something that all smart politicians do when circumstances dictate, no matter where they are on the political spectrum. But most self-styled centrists think that serious people must demonstrate their seriousness by equating the two sides in every situation. It's one thing to recognize the need to compromise in more normal situations. It's another thing to pretend that liberal Democrats are as insane as the House Republicans who may refuse to raise the debt ceiling. There is no equivalence here. You have a party of people who want to take the world economy into uncharted territory by not raising the debt ceiling, who think that the ACA is something so dangerous they're willing to do almost anything to stop it. These people are lunatics, and if it weren't for the fact that we're all in danger of going down the tubes with them I would take considerable satisfaction in the discomfort felt by the Wall Street types who have used and exploited these idiots and now find that it's coming back to bite them.

I'm guilty of false equivalency, I guess.

The mellow range on my harsh-o-meter is broken.

The Republican Party backed over it and then shot it.

I'll go into manual mode and try to approximate a mellowed level of harshness.

Probably, I'll just shut up for now, since my repetitive rhetoric has begun resemble the bullets injected into an automatic weapon by a 1000-round Ted Nugent machine gun clip.

Thanks for the input.

When does Rep. Neugebauer of Texas .... Christ! ... get a little behavioral modification advice from his peers, because so far the feedback he received face to face was a little too tame to penetrate his bullet head.

"non-essential operations are closed down.

the parks are non-essential operations. so, they are closed down."

Non-essential federal government operations are shut down, to conserve money. The parks in question are privately run, and pay rent to the government. This is likely why they were never shut down in any previous government shutdown.

This administration is actually spending extra money, and foregoing revenues, in order to maximize harm. They've taken the "Washington Monument" tactic to new levels in that regard.

The parks in question are privately run, and pay rent to the government.

The facilities in question are tenants on federal lands, which are now closed.

Yes, that sucks for them.

This is likely why they were never shut down in any previous government shutdown.

In *the* previous government shutdown.

This administration is actually spending extra money, and foregoing revenues, in order to maximize harm.

It costs money to shut down federal operations.

As is true of any operation larger than a lemonade stand.

And, shutting down operations means that you forgo whatever revenues those operations would generate.

As is true of any operation that generates revenue.

These things come as an amazing surprise, a virtual epiphany, to some, although to most folks they are blindingly obvious.

This is what the tea partiers wanted, and now they have it. Take it up with them.

I congratulate the Count, who I remember under a different name even if I don't remember the name, for going over the line.

That is what lines are for. Calibratin,'so to speak.

Since Count is reasting, I might leap in as a tag-team switch. I have some small reputation, tarnished and tired.

But 12 years has passed, and I have lost my teeth, and now only spew vitriol somewhat indiscriminately, and then only if someone backwheels my chair and spins me.

So "Exterminate the Brutes" will have to do. If felt truly sincerely, with all your heart, it should suffice.

Capitol police aren't being paid either, despite showing up for work (illegally, but "essentially") just in time:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/03/capitol-on-lockdown/

The private park concessionaires should break the law and sneak onto federal land and man their concessions. Just as the 800,000 federal employees and private contractors who are furloughed without pay and who are forbidden to enter their places of employment or to use their email upon pain of prosecution should break the law, return to their desks by breaking and entering, and announce the civil disorder to Randy Neugebauer and company via email.

No doubt he'll have unpaid park rangers and capitol hill police right on it to form a protective cordon around his precious big mouth to protect his safety from all manner of harshometrics by the citizenry.

The mellow range on my harsh-o-meter is broken.

I feel you.

I'll go into manual mode and try to approximate a mellowed level of harshness.

Thanks count.

From what I hear the division that has to sniff out tax frauds and the like is also down to minimum staff. I somehow do not believe that this revenue creating service being inactive is seen as a bug by the cons (in both meanings of the term). as someone quippped the current GOP proposals amount to a step by step reopening of government until only EPA and IRS stay closed. He or she forgot the CFPB that was to be secretly fed a posion pill in the first or second 'compromise' proposal.

I love how this unprecedented (cue scary music) closure of privately run parks is conclusive evidence of the administration maximizing the pain. I have to think you would expect minor differences between shutdowns (i.e. they wouldn't all be exactly alike). But, you know, this park thing is just so huge, and all, that it could only be explained by The Evilness of Obama.

Self-parody can be rather amusing in trying times such as these. So thanks, Brett.

Thanks, Bob .. and Russell.

Bob, you are duly tagged and in the ring.

Take it away.

Brett,
Keeping privately run campground open at the end of a (federally-operated, maintained, and patrolled) road, in the middle of a (federally policed) park with (federally patrolled and maintained) trails, etc is not necessarily a good idea.
And maybe there's a campground where this doesn't hold true (where federal law enforcement isn't used and no federal resources are needed to maintain the larger environment for users)- but it's easy to imagine the Interior putting down a blanket rule rather than trying to judge this sort of thing on a case by case basis.

Or could just assume it's a gigantic plot by Obama. Yeah, that's totally easier.

Look, here are some obvious things that are going to happen, either immediately or as the shutdown progresses.

Federal workers are not going to get paid. Some of them may not ever get paid for whatever time they lose. Some of them will have to find other jobs.

WIC funds will dry up after about a week. Housing subsidies will dry up too, I don't know how long that will take.

At about two weeks, veterans' disability and pension benefits will run out of money.

No new SBA loans.

No new disability claims will be processed.

Student loan processing will slow down.

Head start programs will shut down.

Etc etc etc etc etc.

And, whoever had planned to go camping with Brett's guy will not get to go.

It's enormously disruptive to shut down federal government operations. That's why folks thought it was a bad idea.

The tea partiers wanted this, and now they have it. Take it up with them.

wj--

But moderation is, in fact, a political ideology with views. A moderate position may be nowhere near the "center" -- especially if you define center as midway between the bulk of the two parties. But it is a very real and viable position when it comes to the issues.
The temptation to talk about this in linear algebra metaphors is almost irresistible. Consider every possible political issue as a basis for a political space. The traditional left/right axis is a set of co-linear vectors in that space (pointing in opposite directions).

Some people's politics have a high correlation to the left/right axis. The question is, does a moderate have high or low correlation to the left/right vectors? People who equate moderation with centrism are asserting high correlation with small coefficients on the basis vectors.

But if you equate moderation with, for example, pragmatism, then you could have low correlation but big coefficients (i.e. more extreme views). Such a moderate may still project onto the left/right axis as a pretty small vector, but be nothing like a centrist-style moderate.

I'm rabidly laissez-faire and I think that big government only really benefits the entities that can use it to their advantage, i.e., big corporations, rich people, political insiders, and others with big legal staffs. I'm pro-choice (within limits) and believe that a rational welfare state is necessary, and will become even more necessary in the future as automation renders lots of people unemployable. I think entitlements shouldn't be more than about 60% of outlays (they're currently at about 70%), but I'm pretty sure that there's something hardwired into American democracy that prevents the feds from collecting more than about 22% of GDP. I'm a foreign-policy hawk but think that the surveillance state is best countered with near-wikileaks levels of transparency. I think that climate change is real but would rather wait for better technology before committing anything to policy. I think federal R&D money is important. I think the ACA mandate + guaranteed issue + community rating tripod is a good start, but the law is so poorly implemented that I can't support it. (I wouldn't shut the government down over it.)

If you project all that stuff onto left/right, you'll get a vector that points right and is maybe 20% of the length of that of the ACA de-funders. But I can make common cause on a lot of things with people with left-projecting vectors. Does that make me a moderate? An independent? Or just confused?

At the end of the day, issues get oversimplified, and for good or ill the main simplification is through projection onto the left/right axis. Because of that, you wind up having to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, and you can only pass centrist legislation. Maybe in the future, we'll come up with political metaphors that will give us something more sophisticated to argue with.

Got my geek on. Please excuse the length.

I'm fascinated by Rep. Neugebauer's "thinking" in all of this.

He is for a heavily armed citizenry, including the stockpiling of the most lethal weapons and ammo ad infinitum in the service of watering the tree of liberty against government tyranny, like running the park system, AND, secondarily, so I don't steal his stereo system, and then he goes out amongst them, these armed,, heat-packing citizenry, armed with his unwavering encouragement and spittle-flecked ideological threats of violence, and insults their intelligence and their jobs, after he has halted their livelihoods, to their faces, and he walks away unscathed.

You know, I know of some rough bars where if you pop in, in natty attire with an American flag lapel pin, slam a rhetorical machete down on the bar, and scream that you want a drink and the bartender shouldn't be expecting to be paid or tipped, or thanked, the one thing that WON'T happen to you ... is a drink.

It's the American way.

I'd like to get inside that tiny space this man, this little boy with the surly mouth, calls his brain and kind of poke around with a flame thrower and a buck knife and try to tease out his train of thought on this matter.

I'd probably have to wear gumboots in there because of the sewage covering his brain pan.

It's important to remember that it's not Republicans doing this, it's a particular subset of Republicans with a specific batsh1t ideology.

But don't they all vote the same? I'm sure a bunch of conservative congressfolk talk about how the shutdown is stupid, but if they all vote against a clean CR, who cares what they say?

I thought that only 2 Republican congressman voted against the current proposal (while another 4 voted against it because they thought it didn't go far enough). It seems to me like the fundamental problem is that all Republican congressmen are terrified of tea party primaries, no matter what they think of the tea party, so in that sense, I don't think there are good vs bad Republican congressman: everyone is responding to the same incentives and so they're all acting the same, no matter what they believe.

I think that big government only really benefits the entities that can use it to their advantage

RM, I suppose that works, if you are careful to define "big government" as sstrictly those parts that can be gamed only (or at least particularly) by large entities such as corporations or unions. But I'm not sure I am willing to embrace that definition. So what about some specifics.

Does "big government" include things like police and fire departments? Parks departments? Health departments? The military (at its current size)?

What it actually seems to come down to, in my experience, is this: "Big Government is all the parts of the government which do things that I dislike, plus anything else which doesn't (as far as I know) impact me at all, except for my taxes."

And that "as far as I know" caveat is important, because most of those railing against big government have little clue as to what impacts them and what does not. They aren't all as clueless as the guy with the "Government hands off my Medicare" sign, of course. But a lot of them are not far from it.

It is amazing to me how quickly the TPers want to switch positions (and then have the rest of us shove their old positions down the memory hole, or be labeled liberal apologists)- first, they want the shutdown, they're bringin on the shutdown, they're not afraid of the shutdown, shutdown will actually do us some good...
And 48 hours into the shutdown, they're running away from the concept so quickly it's like a bomb went off. Apparently their only hope now is to turn it into Obama's Shutdown, since owning this sh1tpile is toxic and defusing their own bomb is untenable.

Brett's commentary looks like a microcosm of this- first, conservatives *want* the shutdown because ordinary folk will realize they didnt need the Feds, and now it's about how Obama is the real villain. No conservative paeans from Brett on the virtue of denying cancer treatments to children or shutting down the VA...

But don't they all vote the same? I'm sure a bunch of conservative congressfolk talk about how the shutdown is stupid, but if they all vote against a clean CR, who cares what they say?

I thought that the issue was the Boehner wouldn't bring a clear CR to the floor, since it would pass (with mostly Dems and some moderate GOPers). But he won't, because Hastert Rule, and if he does then 30-40 TPers will call for a vote and not vote for him as Speaker.
We have three parties in Congress right now, and two of them are operating in a very tenuous coalition.
That is, they'll vote for a CR + defund Obamacare, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for a clean CR.

A brief note on centerism

In days of yore, the Democratic Party coalition included some pretty corrupt urban political machines (Harry Truman and the Kansas City Pendergast machine, I'm lookin' at you) and the descendants of the Civil War Democrats and their Jim Crow racial empire in the south. What these two had in common was a degree of economic populism (whites only). After the GOP ran the country into the ditch in 1929, these groups cooperated with other members of the coalition (unions, communists, socialists, do-gooders, and other assorted scum)to pass the New Deal.

For a time THAT WAS THE CENTER.

Those who claim most loudly to be the 'center' these days are more like the NE urban Republicans such as Jacob Javits and Edward Brooke on a bad LSD trip, i.e. lame brains like Evan Bayh. Folks like these have consistently advocated for the economic royalist policies that characterize the GOP in the roaring 20's.

Folks. That is not the center. That is thinly disguised extremism masquerading as reasonableness. Vectors be damned.

" I think that big government only really benefits the entities that can use it to their advantage"... " I'm a foreign-policy hawk"

These two positions, if not actually contradictory, don't seem to go well together--nor does the description "libertarian hawk". If you don't trust the government to do a decent job on the domestic front, where at least those affected have some chance of registering their dissatisfaction at the ballot box, why would you think the government will blow up the right people overseas? If we make mistakes there, it only matters at the ballot box if there are enough body bags coming home or if people get tired of spending money on blowing up foreigners.

On your more general point, yeah, the political system doesn't give us real choices on most issues because everything gets bundled together into two big packages labeled "Democrat" and "Republican". I don't like voting for Democrats because I'm not happy with some of the stands they take. But given the realistic alternative, I vote for them without feeling in any way obligated to support them on all issues or even say nice things about them.

But in the current situation, the Democrats are sane and the Republicans aren't. That makes the choice easy.

their only hope now is to turn it into Obama's Shutdown

opportunity knocks!!

"It's difficult," the Ranger replied. "Well, it should be difficult," scorned the congressman. "It is difficult," the Ranger repeated. "I'm sorry, sir."
"The Park Service should be ashamed of themselves," said Neugebauer. "I'm not ashamed," the Ranger retorted.

"You should be," sneered Neugebauer.

Rep. Neugebuaer doing what Republican Congresspeople do.

I don't recall ever being so angry, in an almost over-the-top way, as I am now at Republicans.

I am saying very little, because it's difficult for me to read and respond to comments like Brett's and McTex's and keep a civil tongue. I treasure the (relative) civility of ObWi compared to the shoutfests in (say) every newspaper's open comments. I remember how convincing I found "Suck it, Libtard" as a response to my own arguments, and do my best not ever to comment in that vein.

However, I was _much_ _much_ angrier back in the days when many Republicans were defending or denying the torture of captives, including children, by our forces during our late and unlamented adventure in Iraq -- said defenders being not just people I "know" online, but members of my family. That reduced me to spittle-flecked rage, and I'm sorry to say that I shouted at a couple people I love very much when they essayed such a defense.

As for the Count, who has certainly gushed over the top on this thread: I remember hilzoy explaining that he had a certain license unavailable to most commenters, due to his history on the blog. I usually don't much like it when he uses that license, even when he's "on my side".

I thought that the issue was the Boehner wouldn't bring a clear CR to the floor, since it would pass (with mostly Dems and some moderate GOPers). But he won't, because Hastert Rule, and if he does then 30-40 TPers will call for a vote and not vote for him as Speaker.

That is indeed the position on the board.

It's also true that some of the "moderates" are afraid to vote with the Dems for a "clean CR" because they'll get primaried in the next election if they do. They must all hang together, or they'll be picked off individually by their rabid base.

At this point, they're desperate just to find a way to save face; but Obama's not offering one. Some weak-sister Dems are trying to put together a "bipartisan compromise" to allow the House insurgents to claim a mostly-symbolic win, but I hope Obama tells the Dems in that effort to pound sand.

This hostage-taking needs to be dealt with the way Sherman dealt with Georgia.

How does the country survive is one of our major political parties either is or only answers to, the rightmost crazy voices in our polity?

Voices that want only one of two things. That everyone respect their authority or they'll not only let everything burn but pour the gasoline themselves.

At least the word 'vermin' should be avoided because of its connotations (Ungeziefer). I have no objection to the use of 'scum' though (Abschaum).
Where I react especially sensitive is, when terms are used that were taken directly from the Nazi dictionary (which the count rarely does* but con pundits an politicians do regularly). Personally I think anyone using 'special treatment' (Sonderbehandlung) as a euphemism should instantly get his/her nose broken and a finger smashed for each repeated offense. And I do not mean that as hyperbole. I mean real bodily harm with the maximum of pain while not threatening the life or major bodily functions. And it should happen in public in front of unflinching cameras.

*'vermin' excepted

Berial, I think the way this plays out, and the country survives, is this. Those Republicans not totally adrift from reality decide that they have to do what is right for the country, even if the get primaried. And some of them, maybe even a lot of them, do. THEN, the rabid right candidates who replace them lose the next election. See, for example, a couple of prominent examples in last election's Senate races.

Eventually, one hopes that the Republican primary voters figure out that nominating ever more radical candidates is mostly a way to enable more liberal Democrats to win.

This may, admittedly, take a while. I note that in California, for example, Senator Boxer keeps getting re-elected, in spite of being substantially to the left of the California norm, simply because she keeps getting blessed with nut-cases and obvious incompetents for opponents. But can the majority of Republicans everywhere be as thick headed as ours are? (Or maybe they just prefer more liberal elected officials so as to be better able to feel unappreciated and disrespected....)

"This hostage-taking needs to be dealt with the way Sherman dealt with Georgia."

I'm on your side.

well teh right and Wall St. wouldn't and didn't allow OWS to exist. so lots of us live in a different world from the one the Republicans live in and want to say exists, but that hasn't stopped them so far.

If only it was just inconceiveable the Right would continue on with their game of "my way or the Highway, though, i don't expect the Right to face a reality they choose not to.

as Bush Co said, we create our own reality when you are trying to deal with the world as it is.

that is in essence what the Repubicans/TP are about today. not dealing with the world the rest of us live in, but demanding we live in your TP Republican world.

oh god how i wish i could. maybe if i had a lot of money, i could pretend too. and i am a white male so, i know where the Republicans are supposedly coming from

the White Male Privilege is something i know exists just by being a white male. a given in the US. wouldn't want to be a female or a person of color in the US today or since Reagan. i already know how white males feels and think about those "kind."

the Real world, where i expect something out of, but just don't know what. Guess that means i'm ready to be a Republican in Congress.

Some weak-sister Dems are trying to put together a "bipartisan compromise" to allow the House insurgents to claim a mostly-symbolic win, but I hope Obama tells the Dems in that effort to pound sand.

The President has made it clear there will be no negotiations in exchange for a release of the hostage. Release the hostage first, he says. Like Syria, he has drawn a line in the sand, and he does wield the veto pen....don't forget that.

Maybe we need some U.N. inspectors.....

It's also true that some of the "moderates" are afraid to vote with the Dems for a "clean CR" because they'll get primaried in the next election if they do. They must all hang together, or they'll be picked off individually by their rabid base.

Maybe they should have thought ahead before they saddled up the tiger.

Say members of a political party and their voters calls entire groups of human beings "parasites", seeking to humiliate and demonize the latter for 35 years in the former's campaigns, on the air, and on their websites.

Say, this political party seize power and fashion policies which punish those groups of human beings by denying them health insurance, refusing to permit the sick and poor on to Medicaid expansion and shaving 30 cents or so off their daily food allowance, even if folks targeted work for a living, and in addition they want to eliminate Medicare, Social Security and the rest of the safety net.

Say they elevate one hack writer of overwrought prose who characterized throughout her professional career our aforementioned groups of people as "parasites" to a position in which her "theories" of parasitism and the punishments thereof are reflected in an overarching economic and political philosophy, applied to our governance.

Well, you could in turn call the perpetrators of this blood libel -- calling people parasites -- by some other name, most of which are synonyms for parasites ... say, algae, conferva, jackals, sea lentils, or ward heelers, which all have a certain music to them but don't hit the mark.

You could call them "parasites" in turn, but that could lead to confusion, not all of us can be parasites, can we, you don't want to confuse brand names, so you look for another synomym from the sample list displayed below and you find the word "vermin", to which you realize that Hitler and Company gave a reprehensible connotation, so you blanch a bit and look askance and lean toward being politically correct, the very notion of which the aforementioned members of our offending political party are vehemently opposed to, so you might settle for Republican as another synonym for parasite, cadger, henchman, lounge lizard, or stooge, but by using that term you realize you have just insulted Abraham Lincoln, your mother, some friends who are oblivious to the crimes of said name-calling, and other decent Republicans on the internet for example who might take things the right way, that is to say, wrongly applied to them, and they would be correct about that, one hopes.

You need something equally as pungent and despicable as the word ""parasite and among the synonyms available, "vermin" fits the bill plus it was Hitler's nickname used by everyone who came in contact with him, everyone including lice, cockroaches, heterophytes, the public, and crabs.

I understand that word is fraught, so I'm willing to have a poll among our participants here and let them choose the synonym for "parasite" most applicable to our current coterie of hopeless romantics who are burning our civil government to the ground.

Have at it. I'll adhere to the choice in future.

parasite
Synonyms and related words:
adherent, algae, appendage, attendance, attendant, autophyte, barnacle, bean, beat, bedbug, beggar, bloodsucker, body of retainers, bracken, brown algae, buff, bummer, cadger, cat flea, cavaliere servente, chigoe, climber, cockroach, cohort, conferva, confervoid, cortege, coupon clippers, court, courtier, crab, creeper, dangler, deadbeat, dependent, diatom, disciple, dog flea, drone, entourage, fan, fern, flea, flunky, follower, following, freeloader, fruits and vegetables, fucus, fungus, grapevine, grayback, green algae, gulfweed, hanger-on, henchman, herb, heterophyte, homme de cour, hyena, idle rich, idler, ivy, jackal, jigger, kelp, laze, leech, legume, leisure class, lentil, liana, lichen, liverwort, lounge lizard, louse, lumpen proletariat, mendicant, mite, mold, moocher, mosquito, moss, mushroom, nit, nonworker, panhandler, parasitic plant, parasitize, partisan, pea, perthophyte, phytoplankton, planktonic algae, plant families, public, puffball, pulse, pursuer, pursuivant, red algae, red bug, rentiers, retinue, roach, rockweed, rout, rust, sand flea, saprophyte, sargasso, sargassum, satellite, scrounge, scrounger, sea lentil, sea moss, sea wrack, seaweed, sectary, shadow, smell-feast, smut, spiv, sponge, sponger, stooge, successor, succulent, sucker, suite, supporter, tagtail, tail, the unemployable, the unemployed, tick, toadstool, train, trainbearer, vermin, vetch, vine, votary, ward heeler, weevil, wood tick, wort, wrack

Lies by the unemployable puffball sucker legumes regarding Obamacare:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/detect-obamacare-lie-174144152.html

Maybe they should have thought ahead before they saddled up the tiger.

Hoist by their own petard.

My dear Count,

I humbly offer up the following for further consideration: Accomplice, acolyte, expropriator, fellow traveler, flatterer, lickspittle (my personal favorite), rat, scum, stooge, toady, true believer, useful idiot, and water carrier.

Take it to the house. You have my support.

I stand shoulder-to-... well, shoulder would not be correct because my shoulder does not reach that high; say shoulder-to-kneecap ... with The Count.

ObWi is valuable because the regulars here are articulate, not because they're "polite". It is entirely possible to be vicious while being "polite". All it takes is the sort of literacy behind some wag's line: "There goes a man that Reverend Spooner would have called a shining wit.

The Count is more articulate than most, but he's hardly more ... imaginative ... than some of the "conservatives" around here, whose fantasies about "liberals" are generally as fantastical as (and IMHO more vicious than) The Count's homely parables about salsa.

--TP

I'm sorry I didn't have time yesterday to check in here. Also, that I've been tending to skip over the Count's rants, because they contribute little to my understanding of the conversation.

Count:

Please take the chill pill or beverage of your choice. Also, I STRONGLY recommend that you try making comments of no more than 3 paragraphs, and only one at a time, not 2-4 in a row.

Savor the moment.

The answer to the question in the original post is largely path dependence. In the 70s and 80s there really was an establishment liberal media. A conservative counter-media was created by various people at about the time of Reagan. Like most non racial 'counter-culture' movements, they tend to have an interesting mix of proselytizing and insularity (see for example both Communism and for much of its history Christianity--and in fact Christianity still operates that way in cultures where it is a minority, see China and India).

The transition to the mainstream reach of Fox News came later, but the mindset hasn't changed. This isn't a function of the differences between 'conservative' and 'liberal'. You can see it for example in former college 'radicals' who are now oppressive college professors. It is a function of not changing your self understanding as you gain power.

Ran across this from another discussion on the subject (this is a summary of an OMB memo from 2010, linky):
The circular establishes two “policies” regarding the absence of
appropriations: (1) a prohibition on incurring obligations unless the obligations are otherwise authorized by law and (2) permission to incur obligations “as necessary for orderly termination of an agency’s functions,”

I read that as saying that money can be spent on shutting down operations in an orderly manner, but not on maintaining regularly (nonessential) operations even if the latter is cheaper. That is, the executive can't just decide that keeping something open makes more sense in the long run and do so, it can only maintain activities deemed essential based on their function.
[sidenote: I have no idea where the executive gets the power to spend money on 'essential' activities in the absence of Congressional action though.]

Erp no linky. LINKY

I well recall the days when McManus and the Count's earlier iteration roamed the place. It was a glorius time.

So what if the years have made us all a bit rougher, excepting the current front pagers, who have hung on to an amazing state of grace.

OK. Today's mission, if you care to accept it, is to read this.

Discuss.

Discuss

oh humanity, why must you see every day as the brink of an apocalypse ?

Because every day brings new revelations, of course ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad