US Government Shutdown? Not any more!

[Aethrys]

Representatives and Senators supporting the shutdown of the government should be stripped of their positions and prohibited from holding public office ever again, as they clearly have no interest in the welfare of the United States or it's citizens if their stated goal is it's destruction.

Charging them with treason wouldn't be an overstep either.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Shutting it down would end very, very badly for everyone.

No, it would not.

Here we go again ...

[Aethrys]

Shutting it down would end very, very badly for everyone.

No, it would not.

Deregulation solves everything. Just ask mine, factory, and meat packing workers from last century. The terribad guvmint is preventing the free market from working properly, and naturally preventing monopolies on vital goods and services through free market magic.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No, it would not.

Deregulation solves everything. Just ask mine, factory, and meat packing workers from last century. The terribad guvmint is preventing the free market from working properly, and naturally preventing monopolies on vital goods and services through free market magic.

You mean the mine, factory, and meat packing workers that government sent federalized national guard units (and/or local national guard units) against in order to prevent from striking or forming unions? The ones that were working for the guys getting subsidies and favors from the national and/or state government in the interest of promoting big business and the 'general welfare'?

[Aethrys]

Deregulation solves everything. Just ask mine, factory, and meat packing workers from last century. The terribad guvmint is preventing the free market from working properly, and naturally preventing monopolies on vital goods and services through free market magic.

You mean the mine, factory, and meat packing workers that government sent federalized national guard units (and/or local national guard units) against in order to prevent from striking or forming unions? The ones that were working for the guys getting subsidies and favors from the national and/or state government in the interest of promoting big business and the 'general welfare'?

Why yes, I do mean them. They will tell you that they are enjoying the fruits of unregulated corporate contributions to election funds, resulting in corporate ownership of politicians who plan on keeping their jobs.

[The Black Forrest]

Shutting it down would end very, very badly for everyone.

No, it would not.

Indeed. It will probably cost the Republicans the House.

[Death Metal]

No, it would not.

Indeed. It will probably cost the Republicans the House.

And a fillibuster-able minority in the Senate.

And the prayer of a chance they had in 2016.

And...

[Nigerian Kenya]

Indeed. It will probably cost the Republicans the House.

And a fillibuster-able minority in the Senate.

And the prayer of a chance they had in 2016.

And...

Unless something terribly unprecented happens as a result of this shutdown, the republicans won't end up with less than 41 seats. For that to happen, the democrats would not only have to keep all of their current seats (55 once Booker is sworn in), but also take a seat in Kentucky, a seat in Georgia, a seat in Nebraska, a seat in Maine, and a seat in South Carolina. That's highly unlikely to occur.

Also, it's likely that Christie vs. Biden will always result in a Christie Victory, even if the government shutdown is prolonged. For a unexceptional vice president to beat an extremely popular new jersey governor, there would have to be 2008-style hate of the republican party, and unless we have another recession between now and 2016, that's not going to happen. Therefore, the 2016 republican chances wouldn't be gone in the event of a shutdown. Just reduced.

However, If Republicans receive a ton of blame for a shutdown, and that blame doesn't wear off in time, Hillary Clinton will become invincible: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bDFY

[Gauthier]

I still say the GOP is riding the shutdown like Slim Pickens.

Please let them shut down the government.

We could use some progress for once.

[The Electoral College]

Shutting it down would end very, very badly for everyone.

No, it would not.

Even as a critic of government intervention in the economy, you must admit the credit of the government as it stands currently is in a distinct position to influence the performance of the American economy and monetary system?

[Gauthier]

Also, it's likely that Christie vs. Biden will always result in a Christie Victory, even if the government shutdown is prolonged. For a unexceptional vice president to beat an extremely popular new jersey governor, there would have to be 2008-style hate of the republican party, and unless we have another recession between now and 2016, that's not going to happen. Therefore, the 2016 republican chances wouldn't be gone in the event of a shutdown. Just reduced.

Which is assuming Christie didn't have to bend further right and blow the Tealiban to the point where soundbites can be used against him.

[Wikkiwallana]

Representatives and Senators supporting the shutdown of the government should be stripped of their positions and prohibited from holding public office ever again, as they clearly have no interest in the welfare of the United States or it's citizens if their stated goal is it's destruction.

Charging them with treason wouldn't be an overstep either.

Well, you were right up until that last sentence.

[The Emerald Legion]

Good.

How so?

The government is shut down for five minutes, meaning the republicans jobs no longer exist, they reform the government without them?

[Nigerian Kenya]

Of course, there is one good thing about this shutdown. The last one, back in '95/'96, made Newt Gingrich, the speaker at the time, much more bipartisan than before. This one could have the same effect on John Boehner.........

Also, it's likely that Christie vs. Biden will always result in a Christie Victory, even if the government shutdown is prolonged. For a unexceptional vice president to beat an extremely popular new jersey governor, there would have to be 2008-style hate of the republican party, and unless we have another recession between now and 2016, that's not going to happen. Therefore, the 2016 republican chances wouldn't be gone in the event of a shutdown. Just reduced.

Which is assuming Christie didn't have to bend further right and blow the Tealiban to the point where soundbites can be used against him.

Romney lost almost every competitive southern primary last year - the core of the GOP base primaries - and still won the nomination. There's no reason why Christie can't do the same in 2016. In fact, the last time the GOP nominee was the one who did the best in the competive southern primaries was 2000. In 2008, Huckabee did the best in the south. In 2012, it was Santorum.

[Aethrys]

Representatives and Senators supporting the shutdown of the government should be stripped of their positions and prohibited from holding public office ever again, as they clearly have no interest in the welfare of the United States or it's citizens if their stated goal is it's destruction.

Charging them with treason wouldn't be an overstep either.

Well, you were right up until that last sentence.

I feel that attempting to destroy the government of the United States qualifies as supporting the enemies of the United States.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

[Wamitoria]

Shutting it down would end very, very badly for everyone.

No, it would not.

It might be better to explain why it wouldn't be bad rather than just saying that it wouldn't.

But you are correct, while a government shutdown would have a negative impact on the economy, it would be negligible at best. The biggest impacts are political.

[Nordsvenskii]

the whole thing is a no win for the repubs anyways.
Shut the govt down and Obama/Dems can ramp up the idea that Repubs are obstructionists. Should there be any bad effects from Obamacare, they can blame Repubs for that too saying the do nothing Repubs are in the way and playing politics with the economy.
Should the Dems be persuaded to not fund Obamacare, they can come out and blame any bad things from it on the Repubs, saying if only the Repubs had funded it. Obamacare only failed because the Repubs played politics with it and caused it to fail.

If the Repubs cave and fund Obamacare, the Dems have an out for 2014. If it slows the economy, the issue is off the table in 2014 because the Dems can say sure we passed it, but you Repubs voted for it in 2013.

Bottom line the Repubs waited too long and have been checkmated... as usual.

[Death Metal]

The biggest impacts are political.

Well, unless you get paid by federal government. Say, if you're a soldier. Or a private contractor.

Then you're out of a paycheck.

[Sibirsky]

No, it would not.

Here we go again ...

Do you have a point?

I do. 1995 and 1996 were not a disater.

[Sibirsky]

No, it would not.

Deregulation solves everything. Just ask mine, factory, and meat packing workers from last century. The terribad guvmint is preventing the free market from working properly, and naturally preventing monopolies on vital goods and services through free market magic.

So much nonsense, in one post.

[Sibirsky]

You mean the mine, factory, and meat packing workers that government sent federalized national guard units (and/or local national guard units) against in order to prevent from striking or forming unions? The ones that were working for the guys getting subsidies and favors from the national and/or state government in the interest of promoting big business and the 'general welfare'?

Why yes, I do mean them. They will tell you that they are enjoying the fruits of unregulated corporate contributions to election funds, resulting in corporate ownership of politicians who plan on keeping their jobs.

What the fuck does any of that shit have to do with deregulation?

You're just using words, without any fucking clue to what they mean.

[Sibirsky]

No, it would not.

Even as a critic of government intervention in the economy, you must admit the credit of the government as it stands currently is in a distinct position to influence the performance of the American economy and monetary system?

The government shutdown, would not result in a default, or any "essential" services being shutdown.

[The Black Forrest]

Here we go again ...

Do you have a point?

I do. 1995 and 1996 were not a disater.

Ahh but this time it's a bit different.

They were arguing over funding levels. The Republicans didn't want to defund medicare or education.

They basically guaranteed Clintons re-election with that stunt.

The nutters that are now calling themselves republicans really don't want to negotiate over anything.

I can see them loosing the house over this......

[Cameroi]

shutdown is a silly over dreamatization. what it really means, is simply not paying its bills for a while. defaulting economically, that sort of thing.
i really don't think they'd evaporate, or stop enforcing laws or simply go away in any good or useful way.

[Sibirsky]

Do you have a point?

I do. 1995 and 1996 were not a disater.

Ahh but this time it's a bit different.

They were arguing over funding levels. The Republicans didn't want to defund medicare or education.

They basically guaranteed Clintons re-election with that stunt.

The nutters that are now calling themselves republicans really don't want to negotiate over anything.

I can see them loosing the house over this......

Ok worst case scenario, how long can the shutdown last?

If they lose the house, who will be hurt? I mean, other than the Republicans themselves, they don't count.