Gov't shutdown - framing the issue
 

I really hope they don't shut down the government, but if they do, I think there is a good chance the GOP will take it on the chin from a public relations standpoint.

The way things stand right now, the Democrats' message is that the GOP is willing to shutdown the government because they do not want to fund Planned Parenthood. We have the idiot Mike Pence saying that pretty directly. To put a cherry on top of it, we have John Kyl on the floor of the Senate saying things about Planned Parenthood that are obviously false. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/028858.php

A shutdown will hurt the country, but if it helps get the GOP back into the minority status they deserve, then maybe the grownups can focus on running the country.

Apparently, the "story line" is that there was agreement on $33B in cuts for the rest of the year, but without any "riders" on social issues; then the riders were added by the GOP House to defund Planned Parenthood and to remove the EPA's enforcement of carbon emissions and mining. The negotiations resulted in $38B in cuts, but a deadlock on the social and environmental riders. Now the EPA riders are out. leaving PP the sole rider blocking passage.

The sad part is that the government idiots (sen/house/POTUS) will get paid but the boys and girls getting shot at won't. Where the hell is the justice in that?

Speaking of which, there's another place where the House GOP screwed up the PR situation. Yesterday they passed a 1-week continuing resolution that nobody wanted, along with a resolution to pay "the troops" through the end of the year. All they got in return for their effort was a scolding from one of their own for trying to use the troops as a bargaining chip. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/gop-freshman-allen-west-slams-republicans-for-exploiting-troops-in-shutdown-fight.php?ref=fpb

That was my first thought when I heard it on the radio this morning.

Sad that PR and "politics" is so important.
This is 60 Billion; from accounts I hear, they are 3-5 Billion apart. On a budget of what 1.7 TRILLION that is HALF deficit?
What will happen when the SERIOUS discussions start?

Oh, and the dems apparently did not hear President Obama's lecture a month or so ago about the need for civility in political discussions.
The dems have returned to form and accuse repubs a wanting to kill Women and old people. If this 60 Billion is so important, I say, lets reinstate that 60 Billion and cut out the rest of the budget!

Any explanation why the Republicans saw the need to attach the social and environmental riders to a budget bill? No criticism of that, or is their cause noble and just? Just why does the GOP specifically want to defund the non-abortion services, since federal law already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions?

The GOP is trying to de-fund the nation’s largest provider of abortions. By cutting funding the hope is PP will have to curtail – or in some cases, end - abortion services.

But the question remains – what does this have to do with funding the Federal government?

Its an ideological battle much more than a fiscal one. Further proof that almost all the politicians involved only care about pandering to their respective bases rather than doing what is best for our country. Pretty appalling if you ask me.

The GOP threatens to hold the entire federal government hostage over funding for Planned Parenthood and that somehow constitutes pandering by the Democrats. Can you elaborate on that?

Just more silly politics, I can't believe it a year and a half form the elections and we have to listen to this nonsense.

Is it not pandering on both sides?
The dems are pandering to the PP crowd by saying they will never allow defunding.
The repubs are pandering to the anti-abortion crowd by trying to cut abortion funding.
It is purely an ideological --political debate.
Politics is the process or art of self-governing while holding deep-seated ideological differences.

I am not supportting or objecting to Planned Parenthood, abortions or any of the other things that were involved here.

BUT what I object to is my tax dollars going to fund these type of things, not because they are right or wrong, but because the government should not be involved in ideological issue's.
It's all the crap (not correct term here, but it fits) like this that the government has gotten into that it shouldn't be in that has caused the budget to go over the edge.

If you want to support PP, pro/against abortion or any other ideological cause it is your right, not the politicians right to give my money to the causes they feel are appropriate.

It's not just at the federal level, but state and city too.

Like here in Chicago where the city council banned foi gras, since repealed, after getting laughed at by the rest of the country.
It's not just the cost of enforcing / implementing ideological issue's it's the waste of politicians time (not that it's worth much anyhow, but) when they could be concentrating on hopefully more important issue's.

I feel the same way.

Well, I got to tell you....

Lawrence O'Donnell and Howard Fineman late last night were bemoaning the fact that Obama got rolled....again. (referring to his "compromise" (or cave in, depending on your pov) in the Bush tax cut extension bill in Dec).

It true fashion, Obama comes forth this morning and announces another historic first.....the "largest annual spending cut" in the history of the country.:D:D:D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42508309#42508309

The community organizer lives!;)