![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There's been mention of "liberal bias" in the comments on the edit page to the main article, which has seemed reasonable non-partisan to me in its tone. Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang ( talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-The Senate's position can hardly be considered equal when the Republican House are the ones who want to break from the status quo and demand the repeal of a passed law in exchange for the passing of a Continuing Resolution, while the Senate simply wants to pass a clean Continuing Resolution 142.161.97.237 ( talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang ( talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because for all the political theatre, the shutdown did not actually do anything to stop Obamacare, and therefore could not possibly have positively affected anyone who claims to be negatively-affected by Obamacare. Opinions about the impact of Obamacare belong in the article about the Affordable Care Act, not this article.
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. Criticisms of Obamacare should be kept in the Affordable Care Act article.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is because a wide variety of reliable sources describe, accurately, the fact that various factions within the Republican Party planned and intended on forcing the government shutdown. Per WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia weighs opposing claims in proportion to the weight given by reliable sources, and gives prominence to those which are given most credence by reliable sources. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the Republicans as primarily responsible for the shutdown. Ergo, it is not only not a violation of NPOV to describe the Republican Party as intending to shut down the government, NPOV requires us to give that description prominence.
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's better to explain the priorities: to defund Obamacare even if it meant a shutdown. The lead of the article does this adequately. Following WP:UNDUE, and reading random selections of web news articles, I'll leave this as it is.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, they aren't. The Republican Party never had the ability to defund Obamacare. Ever. Any such "scheme" was impossible and delusional. That's not a claim, that's a fact rooted in the Constitution. Repealing an enacted law requires majorities of both houses of Congress and the assent of the president, or two-thirds majorities of both houses. Such an outcome was never remotely politically plausible and everyone knew it. What the Republicans did have was the supposed leverage to shut down the government if they couldn't get Obamacare defunded, by refusing to pass a budget bill. And so they shut down the government. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Repealing" is different than "funding" ("defunding", in this case). Where did you find this information about the inability to defund Obamacare? I couldn't find a good explanation of this. This sounds like important data to clarify.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Like Social Security and Medicare, the Affordable Care Act is funded by so-called "mandatory appropriations" - that is, the law provides that money to pay for its provisions is automatically appropriated every year. That is enacted law of the land. This means that in order to "defund Obamacare," a new law would have to be enacted which would modify or repeal that mandatory appropriation. Such a new law would, of course, have to pass both houses of Congress by 66% supermajorities (because obviously Obama would veto it). There was never the slightest chance that two-thirds of either house of Congress would vote for such a law, let alone both. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- According to some sources, that is the case: mandatory spending was in place for most major parts of Obamacare.
Writer Andrew C. McCarthy contends
- agconservative is correct that the House could not unilaterally have defunded Obamacare, and I do not contend otherwise. The House can unilaterally refuse to pass any spending bills; but to excise a specific spending program that has already been authorized by prior law, a bill to that effect must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president (or, if the president vetoes, passed by in both chambers by the required override margin). The passage of a new law was exactly what the defunders were trying to accomplish.
- If McCarthy is correct, this has been explained incorrectly by nearly everyone involved. The goal of Republicans was to pass a new law that would allow the possibility of defunding Obamacare.
JamesThomasMoon1979
07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is because Obamacare is already law, making it the default and status quo position. Certain Republicans desired to change that status quo and asserted that they would refuse to pass a budget that did not contain provisions repealing the ACA. This is so clearly the historical record as to be irrefutable fact. Refusing to give into a hostage threat is not the same as making a hostage threat, and Wikipedia is not required to treat them equally. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a good point about establishing a status quo or typical position. The Republican proposals appear to be the unusual introduction.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
00:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
To NorthBySouthBaranof: You appear to be ignorant of the long tradition by which the Congress uses the
Power of the purse to support or oppose the actions of the executive department. Indeed, this was the original basis for the separation of the legislative body from the monarchy. The king needed the legitimacy conferred by representatives of the people in order to be able to impose taxes. So he created the legislature for that purpose. But the legislature imposed conditions on granting money to the king and used that leverage to gain the power to: make laws, approve official appointments, etc.. Refusing to fund implementation of Obamacare is well within the normal use of the power of the purse. You also ignore the fact that the Democrats have publicly stated that the reason that they did not pass the original CR or the mini-CRs sent over from the House was to keep the political pressure on the Republicans to pass a full and "clean" CR ("clean" meaning that it funds Obamacare). This choice by the Senate was the choice which shutdown the government.
JRSpriggs (
talk)
10:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
My favorite so far has been the recent addition by a user who cited a Politco article to declare that this is the second GOP led shutdown since 1996. Wherein after reading the FIRST paragraph of the article Politico clearly states "It’s the first government shutdown since 1996". (Copy/Pasted). Thus any point regarding the existence of bias, that, holds esoteric, philosophical, or even opinion as the foundation; simply ignores the blatant bias that literally exists in this inaccurate misquote. (Missed signing) Webprgmr15 ( talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to explain it. This conflict is a result of two parties in the US Congress not being able to agree to pass a law to the President for signing. One "side" is the US Democrats (Blue), and "the other" is the Republicans (Red): AKA the GOP.
If the two "sides" (you might also remember these being called "Chambers"—they're different, but each "side" is currently in control of only one chamber) of Congress cannot agree whatsoever, nothing can be signed by the President, period. He cannot pass bills into law. This is different from a presidential veto where the President sends something back for reconsideration. In this instance, US government is literally paralyzed into inaction until concessions are made or "bipartisanship" is practiced.
By editing the main article to imply that Obama and the democrats are on one side, and the republicans on another...it simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the checks and balances system and how it works. If Congress itself cannot "pass laws" or "authorize a budget" the President cannot sign it because it does not exist for him/her to sign. 71.91.170.94 ( talk) 07:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.64.12.26 (
talk)
07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the "Preceding events and issues" section is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The budget process leads up to the appropriations process, but it is not the lack of a budget that required a CR. It was Congress not having passed appropriations bills timely. Also, it was not the Senate that proposed the CR. The CR originated in the House (and the bill has bounced back and forth multiple times). The sources for this paragraph are largely left-leaning opinion pieces that argue a viewpoint about the motivations of the House's leadership. There's certainly a theory there that could be described as such, but it's far from a definitive account of why certain decisions were taken. I'd fix these things myself, but along with the lateness of the hour, I'd prefer to let the primary author of that language clean it up if he or she likes. JimHarperDC ( talk) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A reader has tagged the article as needing to be split into separate articles to reduce the length of the article. Is there agreement that the article needs to be split? And if so, which section or sections should be split out? Dezastru ( talk) 05:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States federal government shutdown of 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
As the subject says. This is probably caused by the article being written 'day-to-day' as the events unfolded. However 4 years later it may be confusing for the reader to read events described as they were in the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.224.80 ( talk) 21:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States federal government shutdown of 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There's been mention of "liberal bias" in the comments on the edit page to the main article, which has seemed reasonable non-partisan to me in its tone. Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang ( talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-The Senate's position can hardly be considered equal when the Republican House are the ones who want to break from the status quo and demand the repeal of a passed law in exchange for the passing of a Continuing Resolution, while the Senate simply wants to pass a clean Continuing Resolution 142.161.97.237 ( talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang ( talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because for all the political theatre, the shutdown did not actually do anything to stop Obamacare, and therefore could not possibly have positively affected anyone who claims to be negatively-affected by Obamacare. Opinions about the impact of Obamacare belong in the article about the Affordable Care Act, not this article.
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. Criticisms of Obamacare should be kept in the Affordable Care Act article.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is because a wide variety of reliable sources describe, accurately, the fact that various factions within the Republican Party planned and intended on forcing the government shutdown. Per WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia weighs opposing claims in proportion to the weight given by reliable sources, and gives prominence to those which are given most credence by reliable sources. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the Republicans as primarily responsible for the shutdown. Ergo, it is not only not a violation of NPOV to describe the Republican Party as intending to shut down the government, NPOV requires us to give that description prominence.
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's better to explain the priorities: to defund Obamacare even if it meant a shutdown. The lead of the article does this adequately. Following WP:UNDUE, and reading random selections of web news articles, I'll leave this as it is.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, they aren't. The Republican Party never had the ability to defund Obamacare. Ever. Any such "scheme" was impossible and delusional. That's not a claim, that's a fact rooted in the Constitution. Repealing an enacted law requires majorities of both houses of Congress and the assent of the president, or two-thirds majorities of both houses. Such an outcome was never remotely politically plausible and everyone knew it. What the Republicans did have was the supposed leverage to shut down the government if they couldn't get Obamacare defunded, by refusing to pass a budget bill. And so they shut down the government. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Repealing" is different than "funding" ("defunding", in this case). Where did you find this information about the inability to defund Obamacare? I couldn't find a good explanation of this. This sounds like important data to clarify.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Like Social Security and Medicare, the Affordable Care Act is funded by so-called "mandatory appropriations" - that is, the law provides that money to pay for its provisions is automatically appropriated every year. That is enacted law of the land. This means that in order to "defund Obamacare," a new law would have to be enacted which would modify or repeal that mandatory appropriation. Such a new law would, of course, have to pass both houses of Congress by 66% supermajorities (because obviously Obama would veto it). There was never the slightest chance that two-thirds of either house of Congress would vote for such a law, let alone both. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- According to some sources, that is the case: mandatory spending was in place for most major parts of Obamacare.
Writer Andrew C. McCarthy contends
- agconservative is correct that the House could not unilaterally have defunded Obamacare, and I do not contend otherwise. The House can unilaterally refuse to pass any spending bills; but to excise a specific spending program that has already been authorized by prior law, a bill to that effect must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president (or, if the president vetoes, passed by in both chambers by the required override margin). The passage of a new law was exactly what the defunders were trying to accomplish.
- If McCarthy is correct, this has been explained incorrectly by nearly everyone involved. The goal of Republicans was to pass a new law that would allow the possibility of defunding Obamacare.
JamesThomasMoon1979
07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is because Obamacare is already law, making it the default and status quo position. Certain Republicans desired to change that status quo and asserted that they would refuse to pass a budget that did not contain provisions repealing the ACA. This is so clearly the historical record as to be irrefutable fact. Refusing to give into a hostage threat is not the same as making a hostage threat, and Wikipedia is not required to treat them equally. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a good point about establishing a status quo or typical position. The Republican proposals appear to be the unusual introduction.
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
00:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
To NorthBySouthBaranof: You appear to be ignorant of the long tradition by which the Congress uses the
Power of the purse to support or oppose the actions of the executive department. Indeed, this was the original basis for the separation of the legislative body from the monarchy. The king needed the legitimacy conferred by representatives of the people in order to be able to impose taxes. So he created the legislature for that purpose. But the legislature imposed conditions on granting money to the king and used that leverage to gain the power to: make laws, approve official appointments, etc.. Refusing to fund implementation of Obamacare is well within the normal use of the power of the purse. You also ignore the fact that the Democrats have publicly stated that the reason that they did not pass the original CR or the mini-CRs sent over from the House was to keep the political pressure on the Republicans to pass a full and "clean" CR ("clean" meaning that it funds Obamacare). This choice by the Senate was the choice which shutdown the government.
JRSpriggs (
talk)
10:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
My favorite so far has been the recent addition by a user who cited a Politco article to declare that this is the second GOP led shutdown since 1996. Wherein after reading the FIRST paragraph of the article Politico clearly states "It’s the first government shutdown since 1996". (Copy/Pasted). Thus any point regarding the existence of bias, that, holds esoteric, philosophical, or even opinion as the foundation; simply ignores the blatant bias that literally exists in this inaccurate misquote. (Missed signing) Webprgmr15 ( talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to explain it. This conflict is a result of two parties in the US Congress not being able to agree to pass a law to the President for signing. One "side" is the US Democrats (Blue), and "the other" is the Republicans (Red): AKA the GOP.
If the two "sides" (you might also remember these being called "Chambers"—they're different, but each "side" is currently in control of only one chamber) of Congress cannot agree whatsoever, nothing can be signed by the President, period. He cannot pass bills into law. This is different from a presidential veto where the President sends something back for reconsideration. In this instance, US government is literally paralyzed into inaction until concessions are made or "bipartisanship" is practiced.
By editing the main article to imply that Obama and the democrats are on one side, and the republicans on another...it simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the checks and balances system and how it works. If Congress itself cannot "pass laws" or "authorize a budget" the President cannot sign it because it does not exist for him/her to sign. 71.91.170.94 ( talk) 07:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.64.12.26 (
talk)
07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the "Preceding events and issues" section is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The budget process leads up to the appropriations process, but it is not the lack of a budget that required a CR. It was Congress not having passed appropriations bills timely. Also, it was not the Senate that proposed the CR. The CR originated in the House (and the bill has bounced back and forth multiple times). The sources for this paragraph are largely left-leaning opinion pieces that argue a viewpoint about the motivations of the House's leadership. There's certainly a theory there that could be described as such, but it's far from a definitive account of why certain decisions were taken. I'd fix these things myself, but along with the lateness of the hour, I'd prefer to let the primary author of that language clean it up if he or she likes. JimHarperDC ( talk) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A reader has tagged the article as needing to be split into separate articles to reduce the length of the article. Is there agreement that the article needs to be split? And if so, which section or sections should be split out? Dezastru ( talk) 05:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States federal government shutdown of 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
As the subject says. This is probably caused by the article being written 'day-to-day' as the events unfolded. However 4 years later it may be confusing for the reader to read events described as they were in the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.224.80 ( talk) 21:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States federal government shutdown of 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)