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

[DaShi]

I find it depends on the writer and what's being reported. Generally people writing "against" their perceived interest are granted more trust.

No surprise.

[Ben Kenobi]

House Democrats cave!

[Ben Kenobi]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/57-democrats-join-house-gop-to-fund-key-departments-programs/article/2536826

Fifty Seven in all. So there you go, Dem polytubbies. There's the list of folks to target at the Primaries.

[DaShi]

Ben, we already know you are stupid. Maybe you should go somewhere else now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, we already know you are stupid. Maybe you should go somewhere else now.

Your tears are delicious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/tea-party-s-ross-says-debt-worth-yielding-on-obamacare.html

Ross, ranked among the House’s most conservative members by both the Club for Growth and the American Conservative Union, said he’s shifted his position because the shutdown hasn’t resulted in changes to the Affordable Care Act, which started Oct. 1, the same day government funding ran out. The shutdown also could hurt the party, he said.

“We’ve lost the CR battle,” Ross, referring to the continuing resolution to authorize government spending, said in an interview. “We need to move on and take whatever we can find in the debt limit.”

[MRT144]

anyone want to bet on how quickly republicans declare victory after any agreement is made.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

I find it depends on the writer and what's being reported. Generally people writing "against" their perceived interest are granted more trust.

True. That's why this piece is so trustworthy...

Wonkbook: Obamacare's Web site is really bad

[Captain ******* Kirk]

If 2010 had been a national election under our system then perhaps the GOP would have swept into power (conveniently ignoring that Obama had only been in office a couple of years of course), but in that case the GOP would have been running the country and you wouldn't have this nonsensical and idiotic situation where a president gets elected twice and spends his whole time having the other party blocking everything he tries to do.

So you agree with my point, then. The GOP would be running the country and would've been able to repeal Obamacare years ago if the US had a sensible parliamentary political system.

Because elections are held every four years however, you don't tend to get the same kind of 'protest vote' that you saw in 2010 because people understand that they are electing a government not just part of one, and they will have to live with that choice for 4 years.

How can you dismiss the 2010 electoral result as a "protest vote" if it was repeated in 2012? Clearly the voters want a Democratic President and Senate, and a Republican House. The real problem is that the American system doesn't make it clear which branch of government (executive or legislative) should rule in the case of divided government, and gives an unnecessary upper house of the legislature far too much power to obstruct the legislative process. The Westminster system doesn't have either problem.

The American system is utterly reliant on compromise between the major parties. Your entire system is built on the premise. The only time that compromise is irrelevant is when the American people see fit to vote a single party into complete control of congress and the white house.

No ****. That's why it's a flawed system that results in paralysis and massive dysfunction when politicians with radically different viewpoints on policy get elected to competing branches of government and refuse to negotiate with one another. The American political system is broken.

Honestly, I'm starting to understand why my points are "stupid". They must be, since you're agreeing with all of them.

As for the expectation of the lower house to be that they shutdown the running of the US government and threaten to default on the US debt unless their minority demands are met, that's just inane. Which should be pretty obvious to anyone who can read an opinion poll right now.

1. The Republicans in the House aren't a "minority". They're the ruling party in the legislative body that controls the power of the purse.

2. The Senate and White House have refused to negotiate with the House to find a mutually acceptable compromise that would allow the government to be funded. They're allowed to do that, but it's very unfair to then blame only the House for the government shutdown and possible failure to increase the debt ceiling. If you refuse to negotiate with the legislative body that controls the budget, you can't legitimately be outraged when the budget doesn't get passed (or, more accurately in this case, continued).

[Captain ******* Kirk]

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

The other point is that as dramatic as this is, the types of situations that we see right now are really baked into the U.S. system of government. They are unfortunate and scary, but they in some sense follow by design. That's something where models can really help clarify things.

Take the following example. Let's say a legislature has to decide on the budget, the annual budget. In the U.K., the way it works is the government is of a parliamentary type, and in most cases — not always, but in most cases — the cabinet and the ruling party are aligned. That means there is very little in the way of negotiation going on inside the chamber. All the decisions have been made previously in the party or the cabinet. The chancellor reads the budget, and the whole thing is over in three, four days. That's typical in the U.K. and typical in other parliamentary democracies like Germany, the Netherlands or Sweden.

In the U.S., the president and Congress are elected effectively at different times. Their political futures do not depend on each other, and that creates incentives to not negotiate with each other. One of the consequences is that the likelihood a bill passes is far higher in the U.K. than in the U.S. This failure to get stuff done, to pass budgets, is a systemic feature we can understand. It comes back to the fact that in a parliament, the legislature and government are aligned by design, whereas in the U.S. there's this conflict between executive and legislature.

How a game theorist would solve the shutdown showdown

[regexcellent]

Another way of looking at this is, instead of preventing the budget from passing, the Republicans are just passing a budget the President and the Senate don't like and they are voting it down. So they're the ones being obstructive.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

That's probably the better way to look at it, since budgets have to originate in the House, but there's plenty of blame to go around.

[regexcellent]

Oh sure, for instance the Republicans overestimating their bargaining position.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

Or Senate Republicans sabotaging a budget conference after Senate Democrats finally passed their first budget in four years.

Democrats May Be Obstructionists Now, but They Have Good Reason

[DaShi]

Or when Eric Cantor crop dusted the House chamber before they passed their latest spending bill.