The Obama administration are being total dipshits in closing off stuff unnecessarily, trying to make sure everyone feels the pain.

The first weird misstep was closing the WW2 Memorial, trying to keep out folks flying in the Honor Flight program. This is a memorial that is open 24/7, but only staffed for a portion of that under regular circumstances. But the Obama administration instructed the National Park Service to close it to public access, paying people to set up barriers to prevent people from accessing a largely privately funded monument on the national mall that is open 24 hours a day and has managed to make it through the past 9 years unstaffed 10 hours a day. After the lame excuse that it was barricaded because people on staff (during the window it is staffed) are CPR trained, the administration relented.

There have been other ridiculous examples of overstep.

The National Park Service has placed cones on the shoulders of roads near Mount Rushmore, blocking off places for cars to pull over and look at the monument. Because of course people cannot park on shoulders without the federal government's say so. People who live in houses that are on federal land in Nevada have been evicted until the shutdown is over. Maybe Obama should have to stay at a fucking Hilton until Government is running again. The Pisgah Inn run on leased federal land was forcibly closed when its owner tried to continue operations, even though federal agencies are in no way involved in the day to day operation of his business. Luckily enough Park Service employees were considered essential so they could shut down his place of business. Time and again, the Obama administration is going out of its way to create closures that previous administrations have attempted to avoid in the previous 16 times government has shut down since the 1970s.

In attempting to demonstrate how unreasonable their opponents are, the administration is demonstrating that they're pretty damn unreasonable by using the power of government to affect people's lives when it's not necessary.

Edit: 9 Completely Unnecessary Government Shutdown Events

All of this just erodes faith in trust in our elected officials. Doesn't matter what side of the political fence one leans on, I think it's been proven that no one really gives two shits about the people of this country.

The longer this idiocy goes on, the more people are going to view their government as the problem, not the solution, to most if not all our problems. That may be the Republicans strategy, however, they are fully complicit in this mess and should not trusted. In fact, no one from either party should be trusted at this point...

jerseyhoya wrote:The Obama administration are being total dipshits in closing off stuff unnecessarily, trying to make sure everyone feels the pain.

Are you sure that's their motivation? Are Republicans less or more dipshitty because they only want certain, select people to feel the pain?

Edit: 9 Completely Unnecessary Government Shutdown Events

What are the necessary Government Shutdown Events?

jerseyhoya wrote:There have been other ridiculous examples of overstep.

The National Park Service has placed cones on the shoulders of roads near Mount Rushmore, blocking off places for cars to pull over and look at the monument. Because of course people cannot park on shoulders without the federal government's say so. People who live in houses that are on federal land in Nevada have been evicted until the shutdown is over. Maybe Obama should have to stay at a fucking Hilton until Government is running again. The Pisgah Inn run on leased federal land was forcibly closed when its owner tried to continue operations, even though federal agencies are in no way involved in the day to day operation of his business. Luckily enough Park Service employees were considered essential so they could shut down his place of business. Time and again, the Obama administration is going out of its way to create closures that previous administrations have attempted to avoid in the previous 16 times government has shut down since the 1970s.

Edit: 9 Completely Unnecessary Government Shutdown Events

You can add City Tavern to that list. The Federal Govt's only relationship with City Tavern is to collect a rent check. You'd think the Fed's could use the money.

yes, that evil Obama shutting down parts of the government unnecessarily.

GTFO of here with that BS

if it's so terrible parts of the government are shut down, why not vote on a full CR??? perhaps a real government shutdown would actually prod those who caused this to change their minds, but somehow i think SS/medicare and everything else being stopped wouldn't sway them, either. but photo spots for national parks! that sick fuck. you forgot to mention the Dept of Education, DOJ, EPA, etc, in list of unnecessary shutdowns

Luzinski's Gut wrote:All of this just erodes faith in trust in our elected officials. Doesn't matter what side of the political fence one leans on, I think it's been proven that no one really gives two #$!&@ about the people of this country.

The longer this idiocy goes on, the more people are going to view their government as the problem, not the solution, to most if not all our problems. That may be the Republicans strategy, however, they are fully complicit in this mess and should not trusted. In fact, no one from either party should be trusted at this point...

that's quite a take from this, but i'm not sure how democrats are to blame for this mess, AT ALL. so people being affected negatively by a shutdown of the government shows that they are going to view government as the problem? i don't get that at all.

republicans aren't complicit in this mess, they caused it. this is only a thing because they decided to do it. this is not a 'both sides do it' thing.

No, that's your perception of the problem. It resonates with your political leanings and worldview which is fine. Just don't think your opinion is the only way to perceive the issues at hand.

A number of people have real concern about implementing a program which is going to increase entitlement spending. This is a Democrat sponsored program, straight out of the White House.

I for one have grave reservations about increasing ANY government spending when we're $17 TRILLION in the hole. I don't care what

For all the merits of healthcare for all, in principle and in implementation, I don't see them outweighing the fact that we have no money.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but whatever. I'm also not sure what my supposed political leanings and worldview have to do with anything stated above.

didn't the CBO conclude that the ACA would *reduce* entitlement spending???

Bucky wrote:

traderdave wrote:
It is like the fireman that sets your house on fire so that he can be the hero to put it out.

Actually that analogy is incorrect. Sure, there are case of firefighters committing arson, but the reason is for the rush in fighting (and even just watching) the blaze. No "hero" element involved.

/threaddrift

Thank you for the education. I will be more careful with my analogies in the future. Oh, there is this little tidbit though:

"Why do they set fires? Obviously not for monetary gain, so the answer is necessarily a lot more complicated. The descriptive profile suggests that these young men have very little to bolster their self-esteem except their role as heroic firefighters. Noted arson researchers Lewis and Yarnell (1951) support this idea in their description of the “would-be hero” arsonist: “ . . . men with grandiose social ambitions whose natural equipment dooms them to insignificance.”

Certainly, however, there are arsonists that do it just for the "rush". Let's leave it at that. Sorry everyone - I will return to the matter at hand in future posts.

Bucky wrote:didn't the CBO conclude that the ACA would *reduce* entitlement spending???

An often forgotten integral part of healthcare reform: If not actually reducing healthcare costs, then at least reducing their rate of growth.

Bucky wrote:didn't the CBO conclude that the ACA would *reduce* entitlement spending???

Yes, and the evidence thus far is that the savings are outpacing projections.

The supposedly socialist, freedom-killing ACA has added competition into healthcare... just as the pre-DeMint Heritage Foundation suggested. It saves money--to LG's point--by shifting the moment of care from emergency to preventative. This in turn bolsters people's ability to work, pay taxes, etc. it's about as straightforward a collective action to support "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as I can think of.

And for Team R, stopping this is worth shutting down the government and potentially going into default, triggering an economic disaster.

It sounds ridiculous to assert that Republicans actively hate poor people and get off on their suffering. But I'm not sure what other conclusion one can draw. It's either that or total, willful, straight-up ignorance of what this law is and does.

Bucky wrote:didn't the CBO conclude that the ACA would *reduce* entitlement spending???

No. Of course they didn't.

Lol at jh changing his mind and doubling down with republicans.

Obama is closing national parks!!!! The Repyblicans only closed everything else!!!!

dajafi wrote:

Bucky wrote:didn't the CBO conclude that the ACA would *reduce* entitlement spending???

Yes, and the evidence thus far is that the savings are outpacing projections.

The supposedly socialist, freedom-killing ACA has added competition into healthcare... just as the pre-DeMint Heritage Foundation suggested. It saves money--to LG's point--by shifting the moment of care from emergency to preventative. This in turn bolsters people's ability to work, pay taxes, etc. it's about as straightforward a collective action to support "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as I can think of.

And for Team R, stopping this is worth shutting down the government and potentially going into default, triggering an economic disaster.

It sounds ridiculous to assert that Republicans actively hate poor people and get off on their suffering. But I'm not sure what other conclusion one can draw. It's either that or total, willful, straight-up ignorance of what this law is and does.

+1

jerseyhoya wrote:The Obama administration are being total dipshits in closing off stuff unnecessarily, trying to make sure everyone feels the pain.

The first weird misstep was closing the WW2 Memorial, trying to keep out folks flying in the Honor Flight program. This is a memorial that is open 24/7, but only staffed for a portion of that under regular circumstances. But the Obama administration instructed the National Park Service to close it to public access, paying people to set up barriers to prevent people from accessing a largely privately funded monument on the national mall that is open 24 hours a day and has managed to make it through the past 9 years unstaffed 10 hours a day. After the lame excuse that it was barricaded because people on staff (during the window it is staffed) are CPR trained, the administration relented.

There have been other ridiculous examples of overstep.

The National Park Service has placed cones on the shoulders of roads near Mount Rushmore, blocking off places for cars to pull over and look at the monument. Because of course people cannot park on shoulders without the federal government's say so. People who live in houses that are on federal land in Nevada have been evicted until the shutdown is over. Maybe Obama should have to stay at a fucking Hilton until Government is running again. The Pisgah Inn run on leased federal land was forcibly closed when its owner tried to continue operations, even though federal agencies are in no way involved in the day to day operation of his business. Luckily enough Park Service employees were considered essential so they could shut down his place of business. Time and again, the Obama administration is going out of its way to create closures that previous administrations have attempted to avoid in the previous 16 times government has shut down since the 1970s.

In attempting to demonstrate how unreasonable their opponents are, the administration is demonstrating that they're pretty damn unreasonable by using the power of government to affect people's lives when it's not necessary.

Edit: 9 Completely Unnecessary Government Shutdown Events

lol

democrats and obama are such assholes for not making republicans eat only small morsels of the turd sandwich they made for themselves!!! we don't wanna eat the whole thing at once!!!!!! wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

JFLNYC wrote:The point is that the United States of America cannot pick and choose which of its obligations it's going to meet without potentially disastrous results. And only an idiot like Rand Paul would suggest that it's OK to pay our interest obligations at the expense of other obligations.

Some obligations are indeed more important, because they allow us to fund other parts of government. Saying that it is just as important to fund the epa as it is to pay bondholders does not make it so.

Read Rand's quote again. Clearly, he states a conditional... if this, then that. You don't like the "if", so then your issue isnt with Rand's comment at all, just his premise. But then I don't understand the vitriol.

Without clean air and water money becomes less important and neglecting the environment in the short term leads to both higher cleanup and health costs in the long term. So I disagree with both his premise and yours as being both short-sighted and counterproductive.