What? No government shutdown threads?

[First]

The so-called shutdown isn't an order or law requiring the govt to "shutdown". It's about a lack of funds that compels fed offices to send about 20% of workers home.

In these examples (Pisgah Inn and Ford Theater) there is no funding problem. They require no federal funds. Shutting them saves no money, leaving them open costs no money. So, there is no valid reason to force them to shutdown. They are being forced to shutdown because of political theater.

Fern

Sorry Fern, but you're not particularly well informed, I have to let you know. It could very well be that property on federal lands deemed non-essential have to be closed, otherwise it's in violation of the deed on the property. This is not a scenario that requires much brain power to envision.

 

[K1052]

Thats not defending it. "They have a right to" isn't flying regarding Republicans and the budget, why are you willing to accept it here?

I would very strongly suspect that buried in the lease is a provision that if the park is closed for any reason that the business cannot operate. The government meanwhile is still required to secure it's property and in this case enforce such terms.

 

[K1052]

The so-called shutdown isn't an order or law requiring the govt to "shutdown". It's about a lack of funds that compels fed offices to send about 20% of workers home.

In these examples (Pisgah Inn and Ford Theater) there is no funding problem. They require no federal funds. Shutting them saves no money, leaving them open costs no money. So, there is no valid reason to force them to shutdown. They are being forced to shutdown because of political theater.

Fern

Has NPS closed parks in past shutdowns?

 

[TerryMathews]

Like a lot of things in life, you really don't know enough about the details. His deed could easily stipulate a condition for the land being conveyed to him, such as weather conditions or even specifically shutdowns themselves. Very typical of federal land grants.

Sorry Fern, but you're not particularly well informed, I have to let you know. It could very well be that property on federal lands deemed non-essential have to be closed, otherwise it's in violation of the deed on the property. This is not a scenario that requires much brain power to envision.

You're still describing the mechanism by which they are able to do it, not justifying it.

Don't you see the double standard? You're complaining about the Republicans shutting down the government, something they can do but shouldn't and yet you're not willing to speak out against the same thing being done to this man.

 

[First]

You're still describing the mechanism by which they are able to do it, not justifying it.

It would be illegal to do otherwise, because the Feds have a statutory duty to enforce the law. Not particularly controversial and I would say quite justified, because frankly the alternative would be difficult to justify in court. What's the land owner going to say, that he wanted to make money so he violated the conditions of the grant? I'm not a lawyer so maybe that flies in court (I'm half kidding).

Don't you see the double standard? You're complaining about the Republicans shutting down the government, something they can do but shouldn't and yet you're not willing to speak out against the same thing being done to this man.

Huh? It's illegal to violate the covenants/conditions/restrictions of a land grant, you could lose the property. It's not illegal to shut down the government, well within the Repubs' power, regardless of it being recklessly stupid and needlessly costing billions. Your comparison is odd.

 

[TerryMathews]

It would be illegal to do otherwise, because the Feds have a statutory duty to enforce the law. Not particularly controversial and I would say quite justified, because frankly the alternative would be difficult to justify in court. What's the land owner going to say, that he wanted to make money so he violated the conditions of the grant? I'm not a lawyer so maybe that flies in court (I'm half kidding).



Huh? It's illegal to violate the covenants/conditions/restrictions of a land grant, you could lose the property. It's not illegal to shut down the government, well within the Repubs' power, regardless of it being recklessly stupid and needlessly costing billions. Your comparison is odd.

No, they don't. They fail to enforce the law all the time. Look at DOMA.

And my comparison certainly isn't odd, considering that one event caused the other.

Again, you're flipping the question around to avoid asking it. I didn't ask why this guy shouldn't or couldn't violate the order, I said justify the order being given.

 

[First]

No, they don't. They fail to enforce the law all the time. Look at DOMA.

Another odd comparison. Since when does the DOJ rule on ignoring common land grants? Answer is never. Therefore makes zero sense to violate the law over closing federal land conveyed to the owner contingent on certain conditions you have no knowledge of. DOMA, btw, has been challenged since it's inception. Common land grants? Again, basically never.

And my comparison certainly isn't odd, considering that one event caused the other.

Again, you're flipping the question around to avoid asking it. I didn't ask why this guy shouldn't or couldn't violate the order, I said justify the order being given.

The justification is the law itself, like I said. No lame comparison to DOMA is taken seriously by anyone honest.

 

[TerryMathews]

Another odd comparison. Since when does the DOJ rule on ignoring common land grants? Answer is never. Therefore makes zero sense to violate the law over closing federal land conveyed to the owner contingent on certain conditions you have no knowledge of. DOMA, btw, has been challenged since it's inception. Common land grants? Again, basically never.



The justification is the law itself, like I said. No lame comparison to DOMA is taken seriously by anyone honest.

That was a specific example of the Federal government employing selective enforcement. How many examples do you require before you will acknowledge the Federal government is fully capable of selectively enforcing the law.

Again, a mechanism of enforcement is not and cannot be justification. One is action, the other is reason.

Don't bother replying until you're willing to actually answer the question: What justification does the Federal government have to shut that man's business down?

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it. Blame de ebil bubmint for doing what the Teahadists demand, selectively shutting down non-essential govt operations so that other more essential operations can continue on limited funding.

Few with any sense at all would argue that National Parks are anything other than non-essential in the short run. They'll re-open when the Teahadists say they can.

 

[TerryMathews]

Gotta love it. Blame de ebil bubmint for doing what the Teahadists demand, selectively shutting down non-essential govt operations so that other more essential operations can continue on limited funding.

Few with any sense at all would argue that National Parks are anything other than non-essential in the short run. They'll re-open when the Teahadists say they can.

That still doesn't explain why they're spending federal dollars to force private (revenue generating) business to close down on federal land.

Land which is remaining open to the public.

Still waiting for a brave soul to actually answer the question.

 

[Jhhnn]

That still doesn't explain why they're spending federal dollars to force private (revenue generating) business to close down on federal land.

Land which is remaining open to the public.

Still waiting for a brave soul to actually answer the question.

Document that the Parks remain open to the public.

 

[OGOC]

^^ Exactly - work on making the bill better instead of holding the entire country hostage in order to gut it.

Democrats had years to make it better but didn't. Democrats had years to read it and probably haven't even done that since it seems like every other week some new "it says what in the bill?" part comes out.

After a Republican defeat here I see a good chance of a coup attempt on Boehner, which could make things very interesting. As in: do Democrats and sane Republicans work together to keep Boehner as speaker?

I think there would have been a coup attempt if he hadn't done this. This and the sequester are two of the only things I can think of that he's really stepped up on instead of just going along to get along and making government bigger.

He said over and over how he'd try to stop Obamacare and try to not fund it. But, instead, he just kept passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution. Those continuing resolutions are on a bloated "budget" that is still continuing from the first year of the financial crash. That's a lot of spending and a lot of debt.

In short, Ted Cruz' filibuster thing called out the go along to get along Republicans, basically telling them to put up or shut up.

 

[Balt]

After a Republican defeat here I see a good chance of a coup attempt on Boehner, which could make things very interesting. As in: do Democrats and sane Republicans work together to keep Boehner as speaker?

If they are pragmatic, they will. The Democrats won't be able to elect their own speaker, and obviously there's no device in our Constitution to dissolve Congress in the case of gridlock soooo.... The Democrats will undoubtedly demand assurances from Boehner that the Tea Party agenda will be tossed aside, and then keep him as speaker.

Maybe it has been a long time in the making. Two parties no longer effectively represent the political spectrum in this country (not that it ever really did, eg Greenback Party, Libertarians, etc).

Edit: Also, if the Tea Party has any sense (ie they get beyond their kamikaze 'watch the world burn' mentality), they won't challenge his speakership. A bipartisan speaker would very publicly put them to the sidelines.

 

[TerryMathews]

Document that the Parks remain open to the public.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/nationa...2a9ebc-2def-11e3-b141-298f46539716_story.html

Never said the Park was. The Parkway, where this sits, is however.

The Blue Ridge Parkway, in case you want to verify yourself that it is still open today.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/nationa...2a9ebc-2def-11e3-b141-298f46539716_story.html

Never said the Park was. The Parkway, where this sits, is however.

The Blue Ridge Parkway, in case you want to verify yourself that it is still open today.

Oh, so when you said "land", as if park land & facilities were open, you really meant "road", and the park still isn't open, correct?

 

[TerryMathews]

Oh, so when you said "land", as if park land & facilities were open, you really meant "road", and the park still isn't open, correct?

You do understand that the road goes through the Park and is a part of it, right?

The Park is open to this gentleman's parking lot, hence the need for park rangers to blockade his parking lot as though it was Cuba.

 

[ivwshane]

You do understand that the road goes through the Park and is a part of it, right?

The Park is open to this gentleman's parking lot, hence the need for park rangers to embargo his parking lot as though it was Cuba.

Wait I'm confused, are these parks essential government functions or are they apart of that wasteful government spending republicans hate so much?

Or is this one of those times where a government shut down is ok so long as it doesn't hurt private businesses?

Or is this a shut down of government but only a shut down where the people in charge of the various agencies have to abide by the republicans rules; rule #1 being: don't shut down anything that makes republicans look bad or out of touch.

What other rules and restrictions does the dictator party have?

How many federal agencies have to be opened until you call shenanigans on republicans for the stunt they are doing right now? Or do you feel democrats/federal agencies aren't allowed to pull their own stunts?

 

[TerryMathews]

Wait I'm confused, are these parks essential government functions or are they apart of that wasteful government spending republicans hate so much?

Or is this one of those times where a government shut down is ok so long as it doesn't hurt private businesses?

Or is this a shut down of government but only a shut down where the people in charge of the various agencies have to abide by the republicans rules; rule #1 being: don't shut down anything that makes republicans look bad or out of touch.

What other rules and restrictions does the dictator party have?

How many federal agencies have to be opened until you call shenanigans on republicans for the stunt they are doing right now? Or do you feel democrats/federal agencies aren't allowed to pull their own stunts?

I'm calling shenanigans on using Park rangers to shut down a private business because he leases federal land..

The entrance to the Park and the road it sits on remain open. You can drive to the entrance of this gentleman's parking lot and still be compliant with the shut down order.

Shutting down a privately operated, revenue generating business seems to me to be a case of "biting your nose off to spite your face."

So since several of you have taken a crack at this, I'm going to assume this is just another case of "Make it hurt." Amirite?

 

[ivwshane]

I'm calling shenanigans on using Park rangers to shut down a private business because he leases federal land..

The entrance to the Park and the road it sits on remain open. You can drive to the entrance of this gentleman's parking lot and still be compliant with the shut down order.

Shutting down a privately operated, revenue generating business seems to me to be a case of "biting your nose off to spite your face."

So since several of you have taken a crack at this, I'm going to assume this is just another case of "Make it hurt." Amirite?

And your point would be?

 

[TerryMathews]

And your point would be?

That this business was shut down just to cause an impact.

It served no legitimate purpose and conserved no budgetary funds; in reality, as it was revenue generating for the federal government it is actually a net loss for the business to be shut down.

 

[Engineer]

From Boehner....

On the impasse over the government shutdown, Boehner said there had "absolutely not" been any changes in the Republican position on the bill to fund the government.

but what about this?.....

https://twitter.com/RepScottRigell/status/385046426901684224

We fought the good fight. Time for a clean CR.

:hmm:

 

[Paul98]

I keep on hearing about GOP wanting compromise, what are the democrats asking for that the majority of the GOP doesn't want? What would the GOP be giving the democrats that the GOP doesn't want?

 

[TerryMathews]

ACA, on both sides. Republicans don't like it (good or bad, I personally think it's a bad law and at various points you'll hear Democrats who echo that sentiment), Democrats aren't willing to give an inch on it.

 

[K1052]

I keep on hearing about GOP wanting compromise, what are the democrats asking for that the majority of the GOP doesn't want? What would the GOP be giving the democrats that the GOP doesn't want?

No deal could be reached that would substantially harm the ACA (which is now live). This whole sojourn was precipitated by the radicals in the GOP that thought taking the CR and debt ceiling hostage over the ACA was a better idea then trading some relief on the sequester (which everyone hates) for some entitlement reform. It can be argued that people like Cruz arranged this to raise their stature with the Tea Party base instead of actually trying to implement workable policy.

 

[OGOC]

ACA, on both sides. Republicans don't like it (good or bad, I personally think it's a bad law and at various points you'll hear Democrats who echo that sentiment), Democrats aren't willing to give an inch on it.

Democrats won't even give the one-year waiver to individuals like they are giving to special interest big business. That's all the GOP wants now -- fairness under the law.

Obama keeps rewriting the law without Congress.

Democrats think big business should get special treatment, and Democrats think Congress should get special treatment. And all the Democrat voters think that's wonderful.