Anyone else (possibly) getting a mandatory vacation come Tuesday?

[kentonio]

1. Federal agencies created new websites to tell visitors that they don’t have enough funding to run their old websites.

Federal government wastes money writing a new webpage. Estimated cost = $2.07

2. The feds shut down the parking lot of Mt. Vernon, but not the park itself

They closed down the bit they were paying for, and didn't close the bit they were not paying for? Surely not..

5. Not closing parks near Democratic senators’ houses.

Seriously!?

[DinoDoc]

I am shocked that the shutdown of an organization with millions of employees did not go smoothly.

I'm just amused that a) they spent more money putting up barricades closing off scenery and other memorials than they did during the last shutdown and b) they actually threatened senior citizens with arrest if they visited the WWII memorial in their honor (I would have laughed so hard if the Admin had followed through on that).

[The Mad Monk]

How much would it have cost to simply not update the sites, like the IRS is doing?

[DaShi]

It gets better. By which I mean worse.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/se...-the-shutdown/

The last item has been revised, in that the Navy-Air Force Game has been uncanceled due to outcry.

Jesus Christ, MrFun. Find somewhere else to post your crap.

[DaShi]

The Republicans showing just how strong their principles are on all this..

The sad part is that they already got what they wanted: a lower spending bill.

GOP’s missed opportunity: A budget win
By: Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim
October 3, 2013 05:05 AM EDT

Congressional Republicans are in danger of morphing into the anti-Obamacare party rather than one devoted to fiscal conservatism and cutting out-of-control federal spending.

In the shutdown battle, Republicans have squarely focused on dismantling President Barack Obama’s signature health care law instead of highlighting their victory on slashing spending.

Lost in the Obamacare siege: The message that Republicans have already won on the budget.

(POLITICO's full Obamacare coverage)

Congressional Democrats are now calling on the House GOP to pass a “clean” government funding bill — minus any Obamacare add-ons — that would fund the government at $986 billion spending levels, which would preserve the sequester that Democrats and Obama staunchly oppose. It also is $70 billion less than the $1.058 trillion spending level Senate Democrats have outlined in their budgetary vision.

But with Obamacare in the way, it’s now impossible for Republicans to claim a clean spending success in the aftermath of government shutdown.

“We’ve obscured a lot,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). “We’ve obscured our victory on the spending level, and we obscured the failures of Obamacare on its first day. … We should show what we got.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) urged House Democrats in a party meeting last week to focus on opposing the health care provisions advanced by Republicans and argued that the $986 billion figure was secondary issue to the larger shutdown fight, according to one lawmaker who attended the meeting

“There’s three battles going on right now,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “One is the debt ceiling, the other is keeping the lights on and the third is the government funding level. And the Democrats are going to win on the first two but we’re losing on the third.”

“This is a much lower number than most Democrats feel they can support,” he continued. “If you’re focusing on the budget number, this is definitely a win for [Republicans].”

Some in the GOP — like Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas — have been steering the debate toward health care for months.

“It’s all been about Obamacare,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “It is what it is.”

“We accept every one of their numbers even though we don’t agree with their numbers,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) of the spending bill. “We accepted it, we didn’t like it. We took it. And then they insist on adding these riders and nonsensical provisions that try to put a dagger in the heart of the Affordable Care Act. “

In picking that knife fight, the GOP triumph on fiscal matters has been utterly and totally lost on the public.

“Let’s remember what the [continuing resolution] battle is about,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). “The CR is about spending. It’s the spending, stupid. We actually won 100 percent there.”

Democrats readily admit the stark reality, at least in the context of a short-term CR, that Republicans swept the series on spending. But because the House refused to put a clean CR on the floor that was more closely tailored to GOP levels, Republicans didn’t close out one of their easiest-ever wins in a longstanding argument over government’s size.

“Speaker Boehner should have gone to his party and said: ‘They’ve taken a number much lower than their budget. We ought to not shut down the government,’” New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of Democratic leadership, told POLITICO.

“Our number was a lot higher than theirs. We took their lower number,” said Reid hours before the government closed on Tuesday. “Why can’t they take yes for an answer?”

House Democrats had loudly complained about the sequester-level funding in the CR, but in recent days began painting the budget number as a significant concession.

Also, not all Republicans believe they’ve cut enough from the budget. And still others think the sequester’s cuts have gone too far.

Stalwart fiscal conservatives argue that Republicans claiming this as a victory should look more closely at the spending levels outlined by the Budget Control Act, which birthed the sequester and will result in $967 billion in spending beginning in January 2014 without further action. Republican budgetary goals should have been lower from the beginning, said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

“What have we done? We said, ‘Americans, we’re going to cut spending.’ And then we pass a bill that inches it back up,” Coburn said. Republicans are “fiscally conservative compared to the Democrats, but compared to being intellectually honest about what the levels are, I don’t think we are.”

Republicans are also divided over the sequester’s indiscriminate cuts next year that will take a broadside to the military. Those cuts have worried hawkish Republicans like Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. But Republicans aren’t all on the same page about prioritizing a muscular military over pocketing sequester savings.

“I like cutting spending, but we’re destroying the military so I want to be looking at sequestration,” Graham said.

“I think it is a success,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said of securing the lower budget number for the CR. “But it is not a lasting one unless we continue the modest sequester savings going forward and really start to tackle — in a bipartisan way — how we save Social Security and Medicare.”

Even though Republicans are divided on how much spending truly needs to be cut — and where — they all agree that the debate over the budget should not be separated from Obamacare.

“We did win on the funding level,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). But Obamacare “is tied to budgets. This is the only vehicle that Republicans have had an opportunity to debate or amend Obamacare. It’s natural for this to be part of this debate.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EF657A26-E7F5-41D0-8DC4-69FF9748AC6E

This is why many people in their own party are scratching their heads. They've already won. Obamacare isn't worth destroying their own party for. Even I agree with DD on this issue. Let Obamacare sink the democrats.

[DinoDoc]

Even I agree with DD on this issue.

[DaShi]

I know!

[Ben Kenobi]

Obamacare isn't worth destroying their own party for

Interesting lie. First you claim, "republicans got what they sought", yet Obamacare remains.

[DaShi]

You're an idiot, Ben.

[DinoDoc]

Interesting lie. First you claim, "republicans got what they sought", yet Obamacare remains.

Ben: For the love of God, why can't we just let it burn instead of trying to save the Democratic Party from the Albatross that they claim to want? Why do you want to protect Obama?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben: For the love of God, why can't we just let it burn instead of trying to save the Democratic Party from the Albatross that they claim to want? Why do you want to protect Obama?

Because it violates the first amendment constitutional protections of Catholics, explicitly their freedom to practice their religion. It's no different then if someone were to pass a bill abrogating gun ownership. What is there to negotiate? You don't negotiate fundamental rights.

[kentonio]

No-one is forcing Catholics to use contraception.

[DinoDoc]

Because it violates the first amendment constitutional protections of Catholics, explicitly their freedom to practice their religion.

The Catholic Church doesn't have a huge problem with Obamacare in and of itself. In fact outside of the mandate the Church is a big supporter of the law. Regardless a) there's at least one lawsuit regarding the mandate headed to SCOTUS already and b) scrapping that mandate wasn't on the list of the House GOP's list of scaled down demands before the shutdown. So I ask again, why are you so intent on protecting the President and the Democratic Party from the consequences of their actions?

[MRT144]

No-one is forcing Catholics to use contraception.

Render unto the US government what is the US governments

[Sava]

The Catholic Church doesn't have a huge problem with Obamacare in and of itself. In fact outside of the mandate the Church is a big supporter of the law. Regardless a) there's at least one lawsuit regarding the mandate headed to SCOTUS already and b) scrapping that mandate wasn't on the list of the House GOP's list of scaled down demands before the shutdown. So I ask again, why are you so intent on protecting the President and the Democratic Party from the consequences of their actions?

Interesting... the psychology the "less-crazies" are trying to use against the crazies.

Yes... let the Democrats suffer from Obamacare.