Obama slams Republicans for threat to blow up entire economy

[Coito ergo sum]

Republicans have been planning this since August.

Republicans have been planning their strategy and the Democrats have been planning their strategy for roughly the same length of time.

They don't give a toss about the Affordable Health Care Act, they just can't stand the idea of Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act is Obamacare, and a huge percentage of the population is against it.

It was the Tea Party's stated goal to make Obama a one term president.

So? It's every party's stated goal to make the other party's guy a one-termer.

They failed, so now they're just trying to ruin his legacy. Democrats are growing their balls a little and this is inconvenient for them, so someone's gotta pay.

Legacy? I don't think Obama wants Obamacare to be his legacy. His legacy has to be grander than that to be positive. More like "the President who finally ushered in the first step to universal single-payer healthcare." Obamacare is a disgrace and a monumental waste, that doesnt' make anything more affordable except to those people who were already getting their health care mostly for free.

Here's the "Democrats are growing their balls" line again -- as if they Democrats are always being defeated or frustrated in their altruistic efforts to fight the good fight on behalf of the common person. If only the evil Republicans would not swing their big evil balls around so much, then the kindly, good-natured, giving, caring Democrats would be able to make it all right and good, and give everyone their necessities for free. Easy, simple and neat way to compartmentalize the matter, and stick one side on the side of Right and the other side on the Forces of Evil side. It also paints the Democrats as those "out group" little guys who aren't really part of The Machine. How they managed to sell that line of bullshit and how that managed to get swallowed whole by so many people is beyond me....

[Robert_S]

You misunderstand what I'm saying. They're fine with a presidential candidate who did much the same thing in his home state as a Republican. But as Bill Krystal pointed out, they stand to lose out horribly if something like that is done on a national level and is attributed to Democrats.

This shutdown is nothing more than a spoiled baby temper tantrum.

[Coito ergo sum]

This shutdown is nothing more than a spoiled baby temper tantrum.

On both sides. The Democrats are as much to blame for it, but since the Republicans tend to get blamed for stuff like this over the last few years, the Democrats can get away with it easier.

[Robert_S]

This shutdown is nothing more than a spoiled baby temper tantrum.

On both sides. The Democrats are as much to blame for it, but since the Republicans tend to get blamed for stuff like this over the last few years, the Democrats can get away with it easier.

[Tero]

All the republicans had to vote on was the budget. Spent money. These piecemeal measures are just handwaving, theater. They know Obama will not sign them.

[Ian]

This shutdown is nothing more than a spoiled baby temper tantrum.

On both sides. The Democrats are as much to blame for it, but since the Republicans tend to get blamed for stuff like this over the last few years, the Democrats can get away with it easier.

False equivalence. The Republican House holds 100% of the responsibility for this. One. Hundred. Percent.

[JimC]

Talk about arguing about who has arranged the deck chairs on the Titanic the wrong way round...

That's what it looks like to the rest of the world, folks...

[Ian]

Here's a better analogy: a mugger has a gun to your head and threatens to shoot if you don't give him your car keys. You don't believe he'll really do it, so you yell back to put down the gun. So he starts yelling louder to give up your car keys.

Does this mean two sides are squabbling on equal terms?

If the mugger shoots, are both sides equally to blame for the outcome?

[Seth]

All the republicans had to vote on was the budget. Spent money. These piecemeal measures are just handwaving, theater. They know Obama will not sign them.

Well, then, it's Obama who is being obstructionist isn't it? The House has every right to piecemeal appropriations. It's not even required to produce a budget, much less one that the President wants. The House makes appropriations and submits them to the Senate and President for approval. That's how it works. They want to do their job, but Obama won't negotiate on anything. Therefore he's to blame.

[JimC]

Here's a better analogy: a mugger has a gun to your head and threatens to shoot if you don't give him your car keys. You don't believe he'll really do it, so you yell back to put down the gun. So he starts yelling louder to give up your car keys.

Does this mean two sides are squabbling on equal terms?

If the mugger shoots, are both sides equally to blame for the outcome?

I'm sure that's the way Obama supporters will see it in the US (and I may have some personal sympathy for that viewpoint)

But I was making a different point; the partisan positions are not important to most international observers, who simply see a country paralysed by internal political turmoil...

[Robert_S]

Now that it's on, I think it's time for the Dems to start making additional demands. How about tacking on a 10 round limit on magazine capacity? No? How about 8?

How about all guns must be painted pink?

[JimC]

Now that it's on, I think it's time for the Dems to start making additional demands. How about tacking on a 10 round limit on magazine capacity? No? How about 8?

How about all guns must be painted pink?

With Hello Kitty decals!

[Ian]

Here's a better analogy: a mugger has a gun to your head and threatens to shoot if you don't give him your car keys. You don't believe he'll really do it, so you yell back to put down the gun. So he starts yelling louder to give up your car keys.

Does this mean two sides are squabbling on equal terms?

If the mugger shoots, are both sides equally to blame for the outcome?

I'm sure that's the way Obama supporters will see it in the US (and I may have some personal sympathy for that viewpoint)

But I was making a different point; the partisan positions are not important to most international observers, who simply see a country paralysed by internal political turmoil...

You're right about that. I just mean it would be wrong to assume that both sides are eqully responsible for the internal turmoil. One side is causing far more paralysis than the other. Democrats aren't the ones infested by a large faction of radicals.

[Robert_S]

Now that it's on, I think it's time for the Dems to start making additional demands. How about tacking on a 10 round limit on magazine capacity? No? How about 8?

How about all guns must be painted pink?

With Hello Kitty decals!

Oh, I know!!! Only young black males should be allowed to conceal carry.

[Seth]

Here's a better analogy: a mugger has a gun to your head and threatens to shoot if you don't give him your car keys. You don't believe he'll really do it, so you yell back to put down the gun. So he starts yelling louder to give up your car keys.

Does this mean two sides are squabbling on equal terms?

If the mugger shoots, are both sides equally to blame for the outcome?

Wrong.

A better analogy is that you are a policeman and you're holding a mugger at gunpoint and demanding that he put down his gun and he refuses, so you shoot him. Who's to blame? The mugger.

That's because in your scenario you're erroneously likening Republicans to criminals as if they don't have full legal authority to do what they are doing, like the cop does in my scenario.

The House controls appropriations. That's the law. The law is written that way expressly so that the House can put a leash on a runaway Senate and President by refusing to appropriate money for things that it does not believe to be in the best interests of the People. It's then up to the Senate and President to negotiate a reasonable compromise that satisfies the majority of the House. It's a brilliant method of forcing both the Senate and the President to the negotiating table.

If they refuse to capitulate and negotiate, then the House can shut the vault, and should. And has.

Suck it up, buttercup, this is politics working as intended.