Federal Shutdown

[shazbot]

I was wondering if someone could explain how an un-elected political party can force a Federal a shut down on the basis of trying to impeded legislation that was one of the reasons the democratically elected party won?

[Mark]

They were elected.

[Rollo]

"un-elected political party"???

Er... all the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States are elected through at least some process by the people.
Congress 113 has successfully managed to do what Congress 112 and even Truman's "Do Nothing" Congress 80 couldn't; that is, fail monumentally at being a Legislative Body that does things.

US Government 503 Service Unavailable:The Congress failed to fulfill an apparently valid request.
US Government 403 Forbidden: The Congress has understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it
US Government 404: Not Found

[Starter]

Er... all the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States are elected through at least some process by the people.
Congress 113 has successfully managed to do what Congress 112 and even Truman's "Do Nothing" Congress 80 couldn't; that is, fail monumentally at being a Legislative Body that does things.

US Government 503 Service Unavailable:The Congress failed to fulfill an apparently valid request.
US Government 403 Forbidden: The Congress has understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it
US Government 404: Not Found

Some of us consider Congress doing nothing as a good thing. Usually when they do things it results in higher taxes and more onerous regulations on the country. The vast majority of the current crop in both the Senate and the House and from BOTH parties are there for the power and the money. They are, IMO, all liars to some degree and many have sold their souls to anyone who can write a big check.

[D-Type]

They may not constitute the best elected government you could have - but they are the best elected govrenment you have got

Is this a first? A government going on strike!

[Starter]

Is this a first? A government going on strike!

Nope, it was done in the '90s too.

[Gregor-y]

Some of us consider Congress doing nothing as a good thing. Usually when they do things it results in higher taxes and more onerous regulations on the country. The vast majority of the current crop in both the Senate and the House and from BOTH parties are there for the power and the money. They are, IMO, all liars to some degree and many have sold their souls to anyone who can write a big check.

You do realize a shutdown is expensive to the government, let alone all the employees affected, all the people that won't get services, can't reschedule vacations, and so on? Not agreeing to pay for things we've already bought isn't economically sensible, nor is holding the entire country's operations hostage to attack a law that's been passed, judged constitutional, and despite a number of attempts never come close to being changed through the legislature.

There is no way this is a good thing except to a two year old that's just learned the word 'no.' And even they will start crying once they don't get any food. This is going to guarantee no Republican will get near the White House or Senate majority for years, and hopefully help push through a better method of electing representatives, similar to what was done with the Senate a few decades ago.

[odykas]

"un-elected political party"???

US Government 503 Service Unavailable:The Congress failed to fulfill an apparently valid request.
US Government 403 Forbidden: The Congress has understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it
US Government 404: Not Found

How about:
US Government 301 Moved Permanently: The Congress is not here anymore and you are redirected to http://www.nothere.com
US Government 400 Bad Request: The Congress did not accept your request due to bad syntax
US Government 500 Internal Server Error: The Congress has no available resources to process your request

[shazbot]

My question was not very well worded I must admit. I suppose what I'm wondering is one of the reasons the Democrats got elected was health care reform, which is currently being stymied by the Republicans.

[janvanvurpa]

My question was not very well worded I must admit. I suppose what I'm wondering is one of the reasons the Democrats got elected was health care reform, which is currently being stymied by the Republicans.

The ironic thing is this terrible plan the Tea-party fringe of the Republican party have shut the Gubbymint down for is.............

A Republican plan: (follow the links, it is almost hilarious..
If we want to be accurate its "The Heritage Foundation" plan

Who?
From Wiki

Early years
Edwin Feulner

The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors.[5] Growing out of discontent with Richard Nixon's embrace of the "liberal consensus" and the nonpolemical, cautious nature of existing think tanks,[6] Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers. With $200,000 from Coors, the Analysis and Research Association was created in 1970. New supporters and board members joined, including petroleum executive Edward Noble and Richard Mellon Scaife. Eventually, the organization split into a public interest law center and a separate public policy foundation, the latter of which was incorporated as The Heritage Foundation on February 16, 1973. Weyrich was its first president. Later, under president Frank J. Walton, the Heritage Foundation introduced using direct mail fundraising and Heritage's annual income grew to $1 million per year in 1976.[

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[20] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. [21]

From a real Leftie magazine "Forbes":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...idual-mandate/

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate
Avik Roy Avik

James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.

This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

They were all for it, until Obama took up their idea.
Utterslime balls.