View Full Version : World Politics - US Federal Government Shutdown
Gaius Scribonius Curio
10-02-2013, 10:26
I am not sure whether this merits its own thread, so if moderators deem it unnecessary, please feel free to close it. :bow:
However: I feel that a story of this magnitude deserves to be treated separately.
Essentially this thread arises out of my curiosity regarding how the US Government shutdown is perceived, both in the USA and around the world. It has been presented to me, by the news organisations which I trust, that the majority of Americans, even those who identify as Republicans, view the impasse as mindless obstructionism on the part of the Republican party. Similarly, this media suggests that this scenario can only end badly for the Republican party, whether they back down swiftly or not.
However, I am well aware that my own predispositions and the media organisations which I trust would naturally assume that this is the case. So, how do Orgahs in the US feel? Do you, particularly those who oppose the ACA, view this as a legitimate tactic, or do you think that this is an exercise in futility? Has this changed your opinion regarding the party, or made you less or more likely to vote Republican?
More generally, do Orgahs feel that there are any, theoretical, circumstances in which a party should, or could legitimately, shut down the government in an effort to force their opponents to repeal a legitimately passed statute?
Looking to the future, how does this bode for the debt ceiling?
As a personal anecdote, a friend (who has zero interest in contemporary politics) today stated that this shutdown, after the omnipresent risk of being gunned down, was a key reason why she could never bring herself to move to the States, despite the large number of academic opportunities.
I look forward to your responses. :bow:
I don't know enough about American politics, what I am absolutily positively sure of is that it's ubsolutily wouldn't happen here, all politicians here understand is demanding more taxes. So without knowing nearly enough to not make a fool out of myself I kinda have to salute shutting down the government instead.
Like I said in another thread, it's apparently not front page news here anymore, so I'm not sure about the magnitude.
As for whether it's a good or a bad thing, well, it is not very surprising given the attitude of some Americans and especially republican politicians. Americans even wanted this to happen since they voted for a majority of republicans in congress, no?
So it's all good, not like anyone expects the government to do anything right anyway and Obama needs to be stopped because he is only the elected president.
Seems like business as usual.
how it's perceived over here?
Republican´s be trippin'.
Rhyfelwyr
10-02-2013, 12:30
As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.
As a non-American, I just see this as typical partisan US politics.
Montmorency
10-02-2013, 12:31
Looking at the past 40 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States#List_of_U.S._government_shutdowns), I'm surprised it took 17 since the last one to recur.
It's interesting that half of all furloughed employees come from the DoD.
As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.
And they are now one of the most succesfull countries in the world and surroundings. Politics are just petty games, our minister of defence is schooled to be a secretary, our state-secretary of finances never graduated for anything but high-school (havo, second lowest one, you can't even enter an university with it, too stupid, but oh so good at working with her ellbows and putting up weight) and she didn't even have economy in her package, our minister of foreign affairs is the minister of looking good on pictures where he can be jerking himself of after shake hands, etc etc.
Screw it all, we would be so much better without them.
Sarmatian
10-02-2013, 12:59
When the world economy is barely starting to recover, this was the last thing we needed.
As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.
As a non-American, I just see this as typical partisan US politics.
We had a government of running affairs.
We also still had a Flemish, Brussels, Walloon and Germanophone government (:wall:)
Anyway, even during one of our deepest recent political crisises, none of our governmental institutions shut down during that period. Everything continued as normal.
How that makes Belgium worse than the US in this regard, is beyond my comprehension.
Even when playing the pettiest of petty games, our politicians aren't that irresponsible as to shut governmental services down (people pay taxes for those to WORK, not to be shut down) and put so many civil servants without income just like that.
"World leaders," they call themselves. Bravo. Congratulations :applause:
Bullying the entire world with military might but not giving a damn about the common man; nice political parties you have over there.
Calm down, Andres, their financial system is purely based on and adjusted to personal greed, none of this should really surprise you.
Everything is working as intended.
Not to forget that Europe uses the same system as a basis and has just amended it a bit here and there.
Re the shutdown, the most important thing to understand is that this is less an inter-party conflict than an intra-party conflict. Anything you read that doesn't make that distinction is, by definition, moronic.
Pretty good explanation here (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/why-this-is-not-just-washington-breakdown-in-3-graphs-and-1-story/280099/?google_editors_picks=true).
Or as a popular article (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/01/the-nullification-party/) yesterday put it:
Those who keep talking as if there are two sides to this, when there are not, are as much a part of the vandalism as Ted Cruz. Obama has played punctiliously by the constitutional rules – two elections, one court case – while the GOP has decided that the rules are for dummies and suckers, and throws over the board game as soon as it looks as if it is going to lose by the rules as they have always applied.
Ironside
10-02-2013, 14:59
As much as this will delight the anti-America crowd, remember the US isn't the worst in this regard - look at how Belgium, one of those most enlightened Benelux nations, went nearly 2 years without a government because nobody could agree on anything.
As a non-American, I just see this as typical partisan US politics.
As Andres pointed out, it's quite different situations. No goverment in Belgium meant that no new decisions could be made, while current system is running as normal. In the US, it means that there's quite a bit of people that will have forced unpaid vacations until it's resolved.
Personally I think the idea of "crash and burn and then rebuild" has gotten out of hand. It's some kind of block on what crash and burn really means, and instead it seems to be treated as "minor issue that goes on the insurance or something".
We're witnessing a party that's been running out of ideas, dropped their responsibillity and instead spends the time lashing out on everything the don't like .
Pannonian
10-02-2013, 15:00
Am I right in thinking that the UK's civil service runs independently of Parliament, so that the government's services continue regardless of any disputes between the politicians?
Pretty good explanation of why the House leadership can't control the chaos (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/01/why-boehner-doesnt-just-ditch-the-right/).
What we're seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power. It’s not so much about Boehner. It’s things like the end of earmarks. They move away from Tom DeLay and they think they're improving the House, but now they have nothing to offer their members. The outside groups don't always move votes directly but they create an atmosphere of fear among the members. And so many of these members now live in the conservative world of talk radio and tea party conventions and Fox News invitations. And so the conservative strategy of the moment, no matter how unrealistic it might be, catches fire. The members begin to believe they can achieve things in divided government that most objective observers would believe is impossible. Leaders are dealing with these expectations that wouldn't exist in a normal environment. [...]
When you get the members off the talking points you come to a simple conclusion: They don't face consequences for taking these hardline positions. When you hear members talk candidly about their biggest victory, it wasn’t winning the House in 2010. It was winning the state legislatures in 2010 because they were able to redraw their districts so they had many more conservative voters. The members get heat from the press but they don't get heat from back home.
They shut down the us government, and military fetishist Tom Clancy dies...
coincidence?
when will the madness stop??
Veho Nex
10-02-2013, 17:17
I thought this was a holiday? I mean they are still getting paid in congress and senate.
This is interesting: One of the writers at NRO—deep inside the conservative media echo chamber—attempts to talk sense to the loonies (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360092/ongoing-health-care-debate-yuval-levin). Good luck, Yuval!
Republicans did not do nearly well enough in the last election to enact legislation that would repeal Obamacare. In order to repeal that law and attempt an effective reform of our health-care system along conservative lines, they will need to do better in the next election and the one to follow. To that end, they can take several kinds of steps with regard to Obamacare in the meantime: steps that would weaken the law (by highlighting its faults or disabling some of its elements) and ultimately make it easier to replace; steps that would weaken the law’s supporters (by further connecting them to the law in the public’s mind and forcing them to defend its least popular elements) and ultimately make them easier to replace; and steps that would strengthen the law’s opponents (by clearly identifying them as opponents of an unpopular measure and champions of a more appealing approach) and help them gain more public support.
In my view (shared with all who would listen to no avail, for what it’s worth) the original defund strategy was not well suited to doing any of these things. [...]
[Republicans'] control of the House has allowed them to put some restraints on public spending, to significantly reduce the deficit, and to prevent the enactment of more progressive fiascos like those that were enacted in President Obama’s first two years in office, but it is not sufficient to allow the repeal of Obamacare. Control of the Senate would surely allow them to do more to pull the country to the right (hopefully including some meaningful entitlement reform, which is essential) and that would be very important and welcome, but, given that the president will not be eager to see his chief legislative accomplishment undone, it is likely not to be enough to allow for the full repeal of Obamacare. These may be hard facts, but they seem like fairly straightforward ones. Elections matter, and Republicans did not do enough to win the last one.
The shutdown is nothing. The problem is if this rolls into the debt ceiling issue two weeks from now. The Tea Party is insane enough to actually blow that one up too.
Montmorency
10-02-2013, 21:33
Step 1.) Shut down the government - This is as far as some of them thought it out, and for some this is a goal in and of itself. A shut-down government is the ultimate form of de-regulation. I'm sure some are even deluded into thinking it is a state of affairs they can make permanent.
Step 2.) Shift the blame. This is so smart, what they've been doing by trying to fund the government bit by bit and piece by piece. This puts the initiative with the Tea Party, makes Obama look like the bad guy (because in typical spock-like fashion he wants the whole logic-pie or nothing at all), and also starts putting dividers into the public. The military and veterans funding stuff is huge--these demographics don't need much more incentive to lean to the far right. So far the dems and Obama are falling right into the trap. The longer this goes on, and the more Obama tries to look tough, the better off the Tea Party will be.
This isn't really about the Tea Party trying to expand its popularity. They are already popular enough, especially with demographics that actually wield influence and power in society (police, military, the ultra-rich, etc.). This whole thing is about making a statement to the base, the "foot soldiers" of the Tea Party, if you will. The lower or middle-class sorts who get their news from the echo chamber, FOX or blogs or whatever. When all is said and done, the only thing that will be different from before the shut-down is that the Tea Party as a whole will be more galvanized and feel more at odds with the existing power structure.
While it will galvanize the base, I'm not so sure that it will actually add very much to it. The lines are already set.
The shutdown is nothing. The problem is if this rolls into the debt ceiling issue two weeks from now. The Tea Party is insane enough to actually blow that one up too.
Well maybe if the Tea Party succeeds in destroying our credit rating, and makes the existing debt ruinously expensive, and plunges the world markets into a nosedive ...
... then maybe you'll listen to them and see they were right all along!
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 00:09
That is fine. And would have easier to do in the post Reagan years with Communism having collapsed.
But the cosequences of hitting the credit rating will hurt the US more then Gitmo or pissing on corpses or saying how you will do whatever you want with no consequences.
This will potentially have a long term effect in diminishing the US Dollar as it will no longer be viewed as the stable one for investors to dump into when things get turbulent in the markets.
Steadier large volume currencies have started to appear and the markets might hedge with some of the money being parked in China and the EU. That is a much larger impact then most people understand.
If that parking strategy works it will be another stake in the American economy. Massive debt with increased interest rates due to a lower rating and a dollar that plunges in time of lacking confidence instead of going up.
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2013, 00:32
It is kind of hard for western countries to understand what the problem with USAnian politics is.
You pay taxes and ever so often you get a voice as to where that money should go.
... What would be the problem?
Oh well, USAnian politics in a nutshell. It's all about the "NOW!"
Granted, however, USAnians don't have much history or even shared empathy, like other actually REAL nations. Makes it kind of hard to blame them for it.
Or as a popular article (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/01/the-nullification-party/) yesterday put it:
Those who keep talking as if there are two sides to this, when there are not, are as much a part of the vandalism as Ted Cruz. Obama has played punctiliously by the constitutional rules – two elections, one court case – while the GOP has decided that the rules are for dummies and suckers, and throws over the board game as soon as it looks as if it is going to lose by the rules as they have always applied.
That about sums up the entire situation.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 02:47
I don't know about you guys, but I feel 2 days freer already! I hope this goes on for months.
Honestly, I'm very timid about messing with the debt ceiling. I don't see why we can't just keep the shutdown for months and increase the debt ceiling in 2 weeks without much of an issue. Hey, shaking this Piñata has already caused the Senate to open up to tax reform talks (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/326137-reid-offers-to-talk-tax-reform-if-gop-funds-government). Who knows what else we can get them to open up to. I don't care about obamacare at this point, but it isn't too much to ask that they give the poor citizen some relief.. Just until the obvious kinks are worked out. If they don't want to even discuss that possibility, let's see if we can get them to cave somewhere else. Maybe somewhere that matters.
So far, the only people who have been bothered by the shutdown are Democrats and government employees, those who suckle on the teat of government. We could lose all of their votes without losing any votes.
I've never met a public employee who would vote for the ones who are looking to personally send them a pink slip.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 02:56
You mean those who work for a living? The government should be funded in a series of piecemeal bills, similar to those suggested by the House GOP. We were looking to fund Veterans benefits because they've earned their keep and deserve the benefits, Democrats rejected the idea because they want to play the game longer. Let's play. Fund food stamps and disability benefits next. I'd love to see democrats table that bill.
If you want to dismantle the Federal government, secession and conventional war won't work. You use the tools available to you at the time.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 03:05
Yep. Drinking the kool aid. We've had no leverage for years. This is tough leverage. At this point, I loathe the federal system and what it has become. We finally have the votes to hack the thing up a bit. We have until the mid-terms to really gum things up for the other guys and extract some blood atonement before we lose the house. If we set the federal government back a few years it will just be that much weaker vs state power, where things will need to get done. Let's make these months count.
Or maybe I'm just kidding. Or maybe not? Attempts at moderation are only useful with friends in real life. On the internet, we can speak our mind, or even the thing that we wish was our mind. My own initial reaction was to cave. It almost always is, but that's why I make 45k a year and will never be able to buy a home, because I don't cut throats and steamroll other people. My representatives in DC can do that for me.
Let's start taking chances with the system that we don't believe in.
I personally see a tangible benefit from a government shutdown, reduced DC traffic is great, but this can't go on for too long without serious damage. The debt limit vote in two weeks is more important, and it will be interesting to see how it all comes together (I believe the non-insane GOP reps will push that through).
An interesting side effect of the shutdown - until this gets resolved there are no more background checks for firearm purchases, which means no more firearm purchases. I wonder how well that will go over in the red states. ~D
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 03:09
What happens if the rest of the system calls the Tea Party out?
If they reverse the situation now and go budget + debt ceiling are a tied issue (which of all the bills out there would have to be the most closely aligned unlike pork barrel additives).
Tea Party can come and play or cause the USA to not pay its dues.
Credit rating dips and therefore interest rates go up a couple of points maybe 0.1%
US dollar loses its gloss as a steady bet therefore money is diverted out of it to more stable safe economies. Means the ability to service debt goes down as the USD dips a couple of percentage points. This is more damaging then the credit rating slip as it changes people's thinking and attitudes towards the dollar. Hearts and minds of stock brokers are more fickle and the outcome more damaging then fundamentalists.
So that is a mix of internal and external.
Debt ceiling not being raised means that essential government employees aren't getting payed either. That includes the military and I expect it would have a knock on effect in funding and infrastructure to states.
Suddenly it is not just non essential white collar government employees its also all the employees. It is also all those who rely on contracts to the government and their employees will feel the pinch.
This will hit everyone in every economy and there is no way tea party members will be immune to this. Mind you their survivalist factions will be having wet dreams and spam.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 03:17
Listen, if we are just crazy policy ignoramus', let's let this thing run for months. You'll show the country how truly awful we are and maybe they'll throw us out of office in one fell swoop. Problem solved, we won't be able to run for dog catcher. Small price to pay, right?
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 03:27
Are you against funding them piece by piece?
Are you against funding them piece by piece?
I thought the piecemeal approach was a pretty clever idea. The administration uses their shutdown theater to try to highlight how terrible the shutdown is, the GOP offers to pass continuing resolution funding what they highlight, and Democrats vote it down. It shows how unserious they are.
Speaking of shutdown theater (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/01/20775228-storming-the-gates-wwii-vets-visit-war-monument-despite-government-shutdown?lite)- they actually turned out park police and other staffers to try to keep WWII vets from visiting the WWII memorial on the national mall. Mind you, the reasoning was that it was closed because of the shutdown- but the memorial is open-air and normally open to the public 24/7 unstaffed. Yet, even with no funding, they found staff to erect barriers around the memorial... which the vets broke thru.
In even more blatant shutdown theater, the Air Force - Navy football game has been ordered cancelled (http://www.capitalgazette.com/sports/navy_sports/concerns-grow-as-threat-of-air-force-navy-football-game/article_fc1d84d8-7754-5390-a535-94262337612c.html)... even though the event requires no government funding.
Personally, I've noticed no difference since the shutdown... which is pretty much what I've expected.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 03:53
OK, but they obviously had a "right" to do it, as they haven't broken the law and are using their power enumerated under the Constitution. They just refuse to pass the budget in the way that the opposition demands. That is actually called hardball or leverage in order to extract concessions. Ever buy a car? Walk out and prepare to lose the car.
Piecemeal should be the only way budgets are ever passed. Look at your cable package. What is all of that crap and how did it get there? Am I paying for the Oprah channel, msnbc and LOGO? I barely watch CSPAN, the military channel and HGTV and all of the good stuff is on Netflix.
Either way, the democrats currently in power make me physically sick. I hope that they are eating a turd sandwich. The closure of open air parks across the US is hilarious in its absurdity. The Federal government is closed, but somehow they are building evern more irritating bureaucratic obstructions to the American people than they do while funded.
CountArach
10-03-2013, 03:59
Speaking of shutdown theater (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/01/20775228-storming-the-gates-wwii-vets-visit-war-monument-despite-government-shutdown?lite)- they actually turned out park police and other staffers to try to keep WWII vets from visiting the WWII memorial on the national mall. Mind you, the reasoning was that it was closed because of the shutdown- but the memorial is open-air and normally open to the public 24/7 unstaffed. Yet, even with no funding, they found staff to erect barriers around the memorial... which the vets broke thru.
In all the images I have been seeing it is police who are erecting the barriers and I see no reason to doubt that it is the same here. Certainly they did at the Lincoln Memorial and I would suspect elsewhere. I strongly suspect that these things have to be closed off because maintenance staff aren't on hand for cleaning etc. What would have happened if someone, to take a wild example, had sprayed a swastika on the memorial?
In even more blatant shutdown theater, the Air Force - Navy football game has been ordered cancelled (http://www.capitalgazette.com/sports/navy_sports/concerns-grow-as-threat-of-air-force-navy-football-game/article_fc1d84d8-7754-5390-a535-94262337612c.html)... even though the event requires no government funding.
The event itself doesn't but... http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/navy-air-force-football-game-in-jeopardy-because-of-shutdown-department-of-defense-cancels-other-service-academy-games/2013/10/01/d4bfe0c8-2ab2-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html
At Air Force, the shutdown impacts members of the Falcons’ support staff, classified as civil service employees. They would be ineligible to travel during the shutdown. According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Air Force Athletic Director Hans Mueh, assistant football coach John Rudzinksi and the school’s sports information department were furloughed Tuesday.
You can try to blame the Democrats in any way you want for the theatre here Xiahou, but you have no leg to stand on. Your party created this mess and has to deal with everything that follows. The American people are already blaming you. (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958)
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 04:00
Who did you vote for in the last election GB? The one before that? You are good on guns I will give you that and seem pretty moderate, but did the GOP ever have you when they were moderate, establishment politicians?
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 04:04
In all the images I have been seeing it is police who are erecting the barriers and I see no reason to doubt that it is the same here. Certainly they did at the Lincoln Memorial and I would suspect elsewhere. I strongly suspect that these things have to be closed off because maintenance staff aren't on hand for cleaning etc. What would have happened if someone, to take a wild example, had sprayed a swastika on the memorial?
The event itself doesn't but... http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/navy-air-force-football-game-in-jeopardy-because-of-shutdown-department-of-defense-cancels-other-service-academy-games/2013/10/01/d4bfe0c8-2ab2-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html
At Air Force, the shutdown impacts members of the Falcons’ support staff, classified as civil service employees. They would be ineligible to travel during the shutdown. According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Air Force Athletic Director Hans Mueh, assistant football coach John Rudzinksi and the school’s sports information department were furloughed Tuesday.
You can try to blame the Democrats in any way you want for the theatre here Xiahou, but you have no leg to stand on. Your party created this mess and has to deal with everything that follows. The American people are already blaming you. (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958)
Somehow there were enough park rangers to completely barricade the park, but not to make sure that people didn't graffiti the monument itself? LE was not effected by the shutdown. No national security either, unless the job was deemed nonessential. I'm surprised that pandacam didn't qualify, given the governments meaning of "essential services"
People like Barack Obama more than all Republicans combined. He is the magic man. Fortunately for us we don't have to run against him again. The verdict is in, we have lost the popularity contest for the remaining 3 years, might as well have fun playing the bad guy. Go back to pining about Abbott and deal with your own intractable conservative problem.
Even with this tantrum, it's unlikely that it will hurt the GOP badly enough this far away from the midterms. If we lose seats in the House, we could lose the House, but not by too much. We may still grow a few in the Senate. Even with a rebalance, the AWB wouldn't pass with the current membership, only the background checks extension which is fine by me. Maybe a 3 branch Democratic gpovernment could make some bad decisions during the lame duck which would boost Christie vs Hillary in 2016. Who gives a crap.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 04:19
At this point, neither party has my vote. I'll keep voting for DeFazio for as long as he runs, because he's awesome, but both parties are pretty much crap in my book now. And I feel like not sticking to that would be failing in my civic duty: these monolithic parties need to be held accountable for their crap. So aside from the one congressman I like, who is old and passive and won't make any waves anyway, screw both parties. But this crap the R's are pulling right now personally affects me. I am a disabled veteran going to school full time and I rely on services that are at risk because of this stubborn Tea Party garbage. I pay my rent with my VA check. I am the most financially secure person I know. Real people are risk here, and I'm pissed at the Republicans for it. I can't be alone in that. :shrug:
Do you have a job? What kind of disability?
OK, but they obviously had a "right" to do it, as they haven't broken the law and are using their power enumerated under the Constitution.
I wasn't aware the Hastert Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule) was in the Constitution. Absent that strange bit of self-gelding, there are plenty of votes for a "clean" funding bill.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 04:22
I wasn't aware the Hastert Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule) was in the Constitution. Absent that strange bit of self-gelding, there are plenty of votes for a "clean" funding bill.
Who decides what to vote on, Lemur? Does the majority party form quorums and does the House originate spending bills according to its own rules as in Article One, or are those rules decided by the other branches?
So far, the only people who have been bothered by the shutdown are Democrats and government employees, those who suckle on the teat of government.
Speaking as someone who has worked in the private sector his entire life, and who has actually "created jobs" (I love how that gets bandied about like a magic talisman), and who has never taken a dime of government money (not even a mortgage deduction—which is, in fact, a payoff), this sort of empty rhetoric offends the hell out of me.
And the fact that you're willing to spit it in the face of a vet says a whole lot about your character.
Much like the Tea Partiers you include in your first person plural, you cast yourself as a nihilist. Willingly. 'Nuff said.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 04:33
I'll admit, my station in life is largely due to poor life choices, but I am owed a certain something for the service I did provide. Its not much, but it is at risk because of obstinate politicians. That pisses me off.
I will only tell a wounded veteran that they are owed handouts because they earned them. They aren't even really handouts, but I have to tell you to find a job and do it. There is no excuse. At my last job, one of the finest workers was a mam whose back was crushed in high school. His motor and speech skills we impaired. He had the most dignity of anyone working in that place because in spite of the things which should have held him back he had achieved more than anyone else in the office. People were in awe of him. My own situation is plagued by mysterious illnesses which just appear every few years and devestate my quality of life. They never go away, but I have worked for 10 years full time and I am 30 now. I am constantly tempted to just go I've up, but I won't give democrats the satisfaction and I won't do that to my wife. As I've stated, you are a smart man who has more to offer than most. Get out there and don't be afraid to not be great at something
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 04:37
Speaking as someone who has worked in the private sector his entire life, and who has actually "created jobs" (I love how that gets bandied about like a magic talisman), and who has never taken a dime of government money (not even a mortgage deduction—which is, in fact, a payoff), this sort of empty rhetoric offends the hell out of me.
And the fact that you're willing to spit it in the face of a vet says a whole lot about your character.
Much like the Tea Partiers you include in your first person plural, you cast yourself as a nihilist. Willingly. 'Nuff said.
Spit in the face of a vet. Give me a break. I don't treat anybody with kid gloves, especially not veterans. He knows that he shouldn't lie in a hammock for too long, even if it is his too do with as he likes - for his own sake.
We get it, you've broken the paradigm - a job creator who loves paying taxes to people and gets nothing in return, some of which are deserving veterans, others who would buy drugs and whores with the money. Thank you for thanking people for their service.
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 04:53
How much does the GI bill pay per annum?
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 05:10
Youth allowance would start at about 15,000 over three years in Aus to help people with cost of living.
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 05:27
That is a pretty crap hand to deal people.
That $15k is for an eighteen year old living at home with parents on a combined income of less then $150k. The kid can earn up to $10k before there rates are reduced.
Strike For The South
10-03-2013, 07:14
I have only held private sector jobs
Can I spit on vets too?
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 07:50
Is that $15k/year? Aussie dollars or US Dollars?
15k/year is more than my combined income from all sources, by a decent margin. Its only a little less than I made in the Army.
No it's is $223 a fortnight or $15k/3yrs. Plus upto $10k a year of earnings which on minimum casual wages would be about 500 hrs.
If you live away from home its is around $400/fortnight and if you are single with a child it might be $530/fortnight
Fisherking
10-03-2013, 09:59
The Shutdown is just another political game, and one the Republicans will lose, as usual.
The whole thing is disingenuous, of course.
Up until the one in the 1990s government offices or services had never been curtailed. The civil servants had just continued to work but their pay was often late in coming.
You see, whether civil service remains on the job or not is an executive decision. So, most properly any loss of services to the public is the fault of the POTUS.
Clinton took a page from what several state governors had done and shut down services for the first time, to make the Republicans look bad. He didn’t except continuing resolutions much like what is happening this time.
He was covered by the press, just like this time, only this one is even more dramatic than the last.
It is not going to end well for the Republicans and the best thing they can do is just give in. You might have thought they would have learned from the last time, but as usual they didn’t.
No one is going to blame the President for what they perceive as necessary under the circumstances.
Sarmatian
10-03-2013, 10:23
And POTUS is... ?
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 10:42
A terrorist takes hostages, and in exchange for their release demands free passage out of the country on the grounds that both he and the state want him out of there: to actually "compromise" on these grounds would of course be a total abdication of responsibility, and for the executive making such a decision cause for impeachment.
But in reality no terrorist would ever make such demands, in part because it makes no sense to go to the trouble of carrying out the terrorism only to use it to plead, 'Hey let's just forget about all of this business'.
And in reality no terrorist would be so obscenely trollish to commit terrorism and then say something along the lines of, 'So we want to destroy your country and society, and you want to neutralize the threat my organization presents to your country and society; let's do the "reasonable" thing and settle on what we both want for now.'
"What's the difference between Tea Partiers and terrorists? You can actually negotiate with terrorists some of the time."
Obviously, piece-meal funding is a terrible idea both practically and politically.
And POTUS is... ?
President Of The United States. Americans love acronyms.
Sarmatian
10-03-2013, 11:15
President Of The United States. Americans love acronyms.
President works just fine. If that's too long, Obama is acceptable, too, and if five letter word is too long to type, please refrain from posting and go back to your crayons.
Pannonian
10-03-2013, 11:20
President works just fine. If that's too long, Obama is acceptable, too, and if five letter word is too long to type, please refrain from posting and go back to your crayons.
POTUS was popularised by the West Wing as an easily pronounced acronym.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 11:51
Piecemeal funding of a full appropriations package is an upgrade to the constant spate of CR's that these idiots have been getting away with passing. To say that it is "obviously a bad idea" is a bit of a cop out. We all agree (or an easy majority agrees) that funding should not be withdrawn from a, b, and c, so why can we pass a longer term bill funding those things and then move onto the next things. We could get out of the CR crap cycle.
Fund what we all want on an LCD basis or just hold us hostage over a bloated CR bill that is full of crap neither of us want. Although the GOP started this, something had to give. I hope we have the votes to hold for a long, long time.
Oh, and terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violent terror as a means of coercion, you partisan shill lightweight commentators. Somehow, in trying to clip the governments ability to control individuals in ways that nobody desires, we are accused of McCarthyism. You are the ones running around crying terrorism because you don't like the way people are playing with your toys, (which the other people have a right to play with)
I thought the piecemeal approach was a pretty clever idea. The administration uses their shutdown theater to try to highlight how terrible the shutdown is, the GOP offers to pass continuing resolution funding what they highlight, and Democrats vote it down. It shows how unserious they are.
You mean the Democrats should allow the GOP to blackmail them and bow to their every whim for the good of the nation? That would show weakness and turn the Democrats into clowns who can easily be held hostage and extortet. No American would ever suggest such an approach if the GOP were not an American organization. In fact most GOP supporters would probably advocate the use of drone strikes...
I think the Democrats are correct in not bowing to this or else they lose all the power they currently still have.
Might suit you, but you won't fool anyone.
Not to forget that the things the GOP is willing to let through piece by piece probably all benefit the GOP and their constituents to a large part, so giving in to that would be really disadvantageous.
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 12:26
Piecemeal funding of a full appropriations package is an upgrade to the constant spate of CR's that these idiots have been getting away with passing. To say that it is "obviously a bad idea" is a bit of a cop out. We all agree (or an easy majority agrees) that funding should not be withdrawn from a, b, and c, so why can we pass a longer term bill funding those things and then move onto the next things. We could get out of the CR crap cycle.
1. It legitimizes the tactic.
2. It avoids the issue of actually having a conversation on what we want to have and what we want to pay for.
Somehow, in trying to clip the governments ability to control individuals in ways that nobody desires
That you don't desire.
, we are accused of McCarthyism. You are the ones running around crying terrorism because you don't like the way people are playing with your toys, (which the other people have a right to play with)
"Our toys"? So, the legislative and judicial processes are "toys"?
If you want the right to "play" with some "toys", try winning some elections. Otherwise, you're literally a bully and a thief.
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 12:27
This right here is what should be done to the Tea Party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isfn4OxCPQs
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 12:46
Try winning some elections. That's rich. Listen, the American people are scared of, but likely want Obamacare. Here is my narrative:
The American people re-elected Barack Obama because they are more scared of the existing health care system that his hopes to replace. This I get - for all of the things I don't like, there are many things I do like about the ACA. In the reticence of the American people, they handed the reigns of spending over to the GOP to ensure that the majority of Americans who already have health insurance were not fleeced by a Senate and President who are more interested in coverage for the uninsured and those interest groups to which they are beholden, than those who are already paying through the nose. The House originates all spending bills, why? Because their numbers are recognized to be closer to the body of the whole people and the people need to hold the purse strings. As much as the President was reelected re-enforces the legitimacy of the ACA, the fact that the GOP has enough of a majority in the House to shut the government down over the individual mandate re-enforces the fact that they were literally put there to control rampant spending and Federal dictat, particularly related to this new program.
People are acting as though budgets should simply be passed, even though he deliberative body doesn't believe in the budget. Why not just get rid of the House and let the Senate and President just pass whatever they want? Negotiation is what people who hate each other do when they have to live with one another in spite of disparate agendas, and they have already fought a bloody civil war.
The one lesson of secession is that it doesn't work. There is no breaking away, it is either kill or be killed. Do you think that the 13th through 15th amendments would have ever passed during the 19th century had the South stayed and fought in the House and Senate? No way. I'm glad they were passed, but it doesn't change the fact that they were passed when the South had either no representation within the Union or the reps that they had were reconstruction era puppets. You stay and fight for what you believe in, or change your position. Death or ruin awaits for those who flee.
I think that we are approaching terrible times, but due to our past experience we will fight within the system rather than outside of it. The American people are probably already at war with one another, but the tactics will be different. The tentacles must be severed before we are all suffocated.
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 12:54
they handed the reigns of spending over to the GOP
Not at all. The Democrats gained in the House, and actually won more votes overall than the Republicans. If all districts were identical in size, Democrats would have the majority in the House right now.
the fact that the GOP has enough of a majority in the House to shut the government down over the individual mandate re-enforces the fact that they were literally put there to control rampant spending and Federal dictat, particularly related to this new program
Aha. So what you're saying is, any majority in the House of Representatives by any party entitles that one party to do whatever the hell it wants and dictate the actions of the entire federal government?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Anyway, it's only a few dozen Tea Partiers holding the Republicans in thrall, as they are the only ones actually not willing to pass a clean CR right now.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 13:01
What part of "all spending bills originate in the House" is unclear to you?
Also, the American Revolution was won by a tiny, radical segment of the American colonial population. If radicalization has spread to even 10% of the GOP and independents, national stability will be shaken. It isn't like the GOP is demanding that we implement Sharia Law, they asked that the individual mandate be pushed back until the kinks are better worked out. The response has been hilarious and I welcome the failure to negotiate an inch.
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 13:29
they asked that the individual mandate be pushed back until the kinks are better worked out.
So pass new legislation. If legislation is passed, it is not a legitimate form of opposition to jam the gears of the government at large. At any rate, this has nothing to do with ACA in the least, and it's an insult to our intelligence to claim so.
What part of "all spending bills originate in the House" is unclear to you?
What part of 'there are three branches to the federal government' do you not understand? What part of 'there is both a Senate and a House of Representatives' do you not understand?
This is about as reasonable as the President expropriating all assets from the top 1% in net-worth by executive fiat.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 13:35
I fail to understand what the mere existence of the Senate and Executive has to do with anything. The House passes its bill, the Senate counters with its own and they come to an agreement on what should be funded. The House has said that it has no reason or interest passing funding for the ACA as it exists, but we are willing to fund it with a minor adjustment. You have said no adjustments. They should be discussing other options that recognize the agenda of both parties. Or they can fund government piecemeal. That's how it works. You can say no until you are blue in the face a d it won't get the bill passed. If we crazy people really do have enough votes to scupper the CR, then this could go on forever.
Regarding your analogy of the President seizing assets of individuals without a law allowing it shows how absurd your understanding of the Federal system is. Much less your understanding of the term "analogous"
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 13:47
I fail to understand what the mere existence of the Senate and Executive has to do with anything.
Oh, you've made that quite clear by now. :rolleyes:
The House has said that it has no reason or interest passing funding for the ACA as it exists, but we are willing to fund it with a minor adjustment. You have said no adjustments.
Horseshit. The ACA is funded. It is the entire federal system that is being attacked here.
A party that controls the majority of government should need not endure the impudence of tiny minorities, in general. Not at all, is any obsequity owed to said minority.
Regarding your analogy of the President seizing assets of individuals without a law allowing it shows how absurd your understanding of the Federal system is. Much less your understanding of the term "analogous"
On the contrary, it demonstrates your delusional conception of the current political situation.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 13:54
Brilliant. Obviously, the fact that they are in an intractable situation shows that they do need to endure the impudence of tiny minorities. Also, obsequity has questionable existence as a word that actually exists, but I guess since you and another person have used it, it is a word now.
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 14:07
Obviously, the fact that they are in an intractable situation shows that they do need to endure the impudence of tiny minorities.
:applause:
You all heard it - minority rule is the standard!
Parties should be trying as hard as possible to lose future elections, because after all, it's the minority who gets to run the government!
It's cool when people forget what they're fighting about in the first place. Bravo (http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-stands-firm-against-funding-bill-will-link-to-debt-ceiling-fight/article/2536750).
“This is not just about Obamacare anymore,” centrist Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., said.
“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 17:42
This has very little to do with Obamacare. It is a diversion to stall and weaken the Federal government and extract concessions, just like everything that congress does has little to do with the theme. The weaker and more dysfunctional the Federal system is, the more money interest groups will pay to States to enact favorable legislation. The more we do this, the weaker the Federal government becomes in a ratio to State power. If we could do this every day I would favor that.
Every day that the government dithers it weakens in relation to those who have their act together. Every day the Federal government weakens, individuals have more of a say in how they live their own lives. Hopefully a weakened Federal government can refocus its energies on core responsibilities.
Maybe we have finally found a way to cut some heads off of the Hydra?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-03-2013, 17:56
The Shutdown is just another political game, and one the Republicans will lose, as usual.
The whole thing is disingenuous, of course.
Up until the one in the 1990s government offices or services had never been curtailed. The civil servants had just continued to work but their pay was often late in coming.
You see, whether civil service remains on the job or not is an executive decision. So, most properly any loss of services to the public is the fault of the POTUS.
Clinton took a page from what several state governors had done and shut down services for the first time, to make the Republicans look bad. He didn’t except continuing resolutions much like what is happening this time.
He was covered by the press, just like this time, only this one is even more dramatic than the last.
It is not going to end well for the Republicans and the best thing they can do is just give in. You might have thought they would have learned from the last time, but as usual they didn’t.
No one is going to blame the President for what they perceive as necessary under the circumstances.
Polls suggest that at least 30% of the USA blames Obama (though not necessarily exclusively) for the shutdown. They basic mis-calculation there is that GOP representatives have to stand for reelection. Obama does not. The GOP might pick up a little momentum in the next congressional elections, but the only potential shift is in the Senate...and so far that doesn't seem likely based on folks reaction.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-03-2013, 18:04
Bunch of drama-craving prostitutes, the lot of them.
Separate funding bills? Fine. Omnibus package? Fine.
How about getting the damn budget finished by 1 September for a change.
Instead, we need the drama of a showdown in slow motion. Gack.
upheld by the Supreme Court
Just for accuracy's sake: Pretty sure only a couple of aspects of ACA/Obamacare have been challenged in front of the Supremes. So it's not as though the entire law has been vetted and approved by the Men in Black.
Other than that, yeah. The Obomination Kenyan Socialist Pretender (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZT7xLjxuhs) has played by the rules: two national elections and a Supreme Court challenge. The Repubs? Not so much.
"We are nihilists, Lebowski, we believe in nothing!"
"We are nihilists, Lebowski, we believe in nothing!"
I wonder if Ted Cruz's wife has 9 toes? :inquisitive:
a completely inoffensive name
10-03-2013, 21:32
At this point Dawg is saying that he wants to disrupt society and entire economies simply because he wants the focus of interest groups to be bribing state legislatures for policy favors instead of Congress.
It's just fighting an abstract concept for the sake of fighting it. Such is what happens when you have too much free time on your hands.
The event itself doesn't but... http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/navy-air-force-football-game-in-jeopardy-because-of-shutdown-department-of-defense-cancels-other-service-academy-games/2013/10/01/d4bfe0c8-2ab2-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html
At Air Force, the shutdown impacts members of the Falcons’ support staff, classified as civil service employees. They would be ineligible to travel during the shutdown. According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Air Force Athletic Director Hans Mueh, assistant football coach John Rudzinksi and the school’s sports information department were furloughed Tuesday.Uh-huh. Read the rest of your link. During the Clinton-era shutdown they had the same furloughs.... and they still played their games. :yes:
Other than that, yeah. The Obomination Kenyan Socialist Pretender (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZT7xLjxuhs) has played by the rules: two national elections and a Supreme Court challenge. The Repubs? Not so much.I think that's just a little bit disingenuous. Remember how they had to use the reconciliation gimmick to get the bill thru the Senate? Nothing illegal but it definitely took a lot of arm-twisting and gaming Senate procedures.
Similarly, this shutdown isn't breaking any rules either. Spending bills come from the House. What "rules" aren't they following? I would think that by your standard the Senate didn't play by the rules when they passed it, if the House isn't playing by the rules now. I think in both cases, the politicians are just playing the game...
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2013, 23:59
Would you please, please, give me the longest possible version of why you think this is a good thing? The whole philosophical shebang, please. I want to try and understand.
...because by my estimation, a weaker federal government only helps big business, and that's not good. Consumer protection and environmental protection is too weak as it is, all around.
Long story short, it is an excuse to shut down government. Despite what the GOP says, we want to shut down government. We believe that most of what the Federal government does is bloated, unnecessary and a cancer on individual rights. All of the things that we do like about the Federal Government are constantly held against us as a bargaining chip for why we need to compromise and allow another bloated program through. The ACA is law and it isn't worth fighting against anymore, but the fact that, although it is currently unworkable, there is still a law that says you will be penalized for not having something that you can't get is naturally irritating for many. This has an ounce of populist resonance, even though it will largely be rectified by tax time and most people will have access before they have to pay a fee. Anyone who can't afford health care won't have to pay the fee in any case because they end up getting money that they never put in. Net tax recipients will not be penalized for failing to buy something that they can't afford.
It is simply something that we are able to use against the Democrats. We've lost the popularity contest, are not slated to lose or gain many seats at the mid-term. Since we are already played in the media as the bad guy, let's just live up to it. We all know that spending needs to be reigned in to avoid higher taxes long term, so let's leverage the little that we have. The ACA mandate delay is a distraction. I'd be pissed if they even gave it to us because then we wouldn't have a reason to stay in shut down.
Papewaio
10-04-2013, 00:05
You do realize that you will be effectively getting less for your tax money if you get your credit rating lowered right?
Because more of your taxes will go to paying interest.
Effectively what the Tea Party has done is increased the tax without representation ratio as more of your taxes go overseas to pay interest.
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 00:13
What does a default have to do with the shutdown? Do you mean people will start to think that the US can't pay its bills and it's own people have lost confidence in it?
If you mean that we will get a downgrade because we can't pass a budget, I'm not sure that one has to do with the other. We are currently saving money by ceasing nonessential services. We won't get a credit downgrade for that. The risk to our credit rating will come from interest in default. The failure to repay our obligations. That has not yet been discussed. I would much rather spend this time hardballing for cuts to programs and have no intention of supporting a debt ceiling impact.
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 00:29
Well, it is a brilliant idea after all.
'The Federal govt does too many things mediocrely, and instead should do a few things excellently. To that end, we're going to smash at the economy until the Federal bureaucracy collapses along with it.
Afterwards, America rises from the ashes like a bald eagle and becomes GREAT and FREE again!
It's like we say, just give us a chance to destroy the national and international economic balance, and then we'll all decide who was right or wrong.
And if you don't, that just means you're a MINDLESS TYRANT.
WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM? THE FACT THAT WE EXIST ENTAILS THAT WE DESERVE TO BE GIVEN THE REIGNS AND LEVERS.'
Seamus Fermanagh
10-04-2013, 00:37
You do realize that you will be effectively getting less for your tax money if you get your credit rating lowered right?
Because more of your taxes will go to paying interest.
Effectively what the Tea Party has done is increased the tax without representation ratio as more of your taxes go overseas to pay interest.
NPR is reporting that S&P has no plans, as of yet, for a further reduction of the credit rating. On the other hand, they did suggest that returning to a AAA was unlikely in the near future was unlikely given the current silliness in Wolkenkuckucksheim-on-Potomac.*
*First read and loved that word in Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day.
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 00:50
We have something that you need. We dont like you. You demand it. We have no reason to give it to you. Why is this so hard to understand? Find something we want, give it to us, and we will give you the thing that you want. Promise.
You guys just like to guilt us into doing things we don't want to do for nothing in return. When does anything actually work like that?
Papewaio
10-04-2013, 00:59
"Cutting off your nose to spite your face." / Pyhric Victory.
If you push to hard you will get a rebound that will erode the Tea Party and Republican Party.
I'm sure that one of the Republican Parties selling points is its fiscal and budgetary strength. This will be tarnished severely if they cause damage to the markets. In Aus in the early eighties we had a similar scenario and it essentially caused such a massive electoral backlash it meant the left held Federal power for a dozen years.
In other words you might motivate the non voters to get up and vote democrats for a decade.
If you push to hard you will get a rebound that will erode the Tea Party and Republican Party.
I'm sure that one of the Republican Parties selling points is its fiscal and budgetary strength. This will be tarnished severely if they cause damage to the markets. In Aus in the early eighties we had a similar scenario and it essentially caused such a massive electoral backlash it meant the left held Federal power for a dozen years.
In other words you might motivate the non voters to get up and vote democrats for a decade.
Being honest, that happening in America will be the biggest triumph the modern Republicans would ever accomplish. Eliminate themselves and their idiot ideas (such as 'no such thing as Rape', non-whites are inferior, 10 commandants added to the constitution, etc). They attract too much support from the 'Looney Fringe' pretty much turning them into the Father Jack of American politics.
Then the democrat party could collapse into two, establishing a new 'left and right' two-party system where it might have some real left-leaning policies which will benefit the common American and the choice for the same old 'right wing party but painted blue' option.
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 01:13
We have something that you need. We dont like you. You demand it. We have no reason to give it to you.
So you have no alternatives, no real policies to offer, just 'Let us set off the bomb or we'll set off the bomb.'
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 01:19
Who cares. To hell with the GOP.
The proscription is to eliminate government from our lives as much as possible while keeping what works, maybe. Have fun with your crappy status quo. Let's see where the Democrats take the country after they beat the GOP out of all parts of government. Maybe it will be good places.
I don't want money, I don't really care about the economy, I don't want a house. Go get them, tigers. They are all yours. I just want to break your stuff.
HopAlongBunny
10-04-2013, 01:21
Terrorists!
Since they are threatening the International economy:
International Terrorists!
:creep:
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 01:27
Let's see where the Democrats take the country after they beat the GOP out of all parts of government.
Democratic politics is not a game that's meant to end in one-party rule.
Does this surprise you?
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 01:29
Why not? Everything that the GOP thinks is wrong, everything that the Democrats say is right. Just embrace it already. Barack is pretty great. He doesnt have to retire in 2016. Let's be the change that we want in term limits!
Let the curtains part, dissolve the GOP. This coalition has outlived it's usefullness. The crazy people won't go away, they will just register Democrat or independent and build a new coalition which the government can't cope with.
I just want to break your stuff.
Okay, okay, it's pretty obvious that somebody needs a hug.
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 01:37
Everybody complains about the already existent one party state. Anti government extremist faction sure is another type of party, but you guys want nothing to do with it because you need the Federal government and all it claims to do for you at great expense.
Lemur, I dont need a hug, I just started a new job and I'm being sent to Europe for 10 days. I love my life. I just hate the government and want to see it fail. Don't you have a fat, loud neighbor that you just hate and wish would move? Does he ever speak on behalf of the neighborhood? That's how I feel about the Federal government.
you guys [...] need the Federal government and all it claims to do for you at great expense.
Yes, clearly, I could not possibly get through my day without all of that Federal, State, and County largesse I use. How very perceptive. Hmm, you know, there was another propaganda movement that depicted its opponents as sub-human parasites ...
I just hate the government and want to see it fail.
Spoken like someone who really, really needs a hug. And maybe a little lie-down.
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 01:52
Yes, clearly, I could not possibly get through my day without all of that Federal, State, and County largesse I use. How very perceptive. Hmm, you know, there was another propaganda movement that depicted its opponents as sub-human parasites ...
Spoken like someone who really, really needs a hug. And maybe a little lie-down.
You missed my point. You treat the government like a protector rather than a parasite. I get it. I'm not part of the tea party, BTW, I just hate government. I've never gone to a rally, I've never parotted their lines. Dont take what I say as what the tea party thinks. I'm barely an American. I hold a passport and pay taxes because it is better than having my pay docked, but I couldn't care less about this country. I like quite a few things that we are about, guns, equal rights, individual sovereignty, rejection of authority, etc.but I am not your countryman. The patriotism of the teaparty is my least favorite thing about it. The US is just a bloated bureaucratic artifact. The idea is what is important, not the flag or the government. It is the rejection of the lives of others being imposed on you.
I'm just having fun, blowing off steam. I like to play sides for the underdog, but I don't care what happens.
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 02:13
Who knows. I know that I'm not represented in government and have no idea what "representation" is good for. I'm thinking about starting a kick starter campaign in my area against Pete King. Maybe putting up signs that say America Rejects Kings - republicans against Pete King, you know, just because I want to help stress the guy out if I can.
My one belief is in undermining authority. Years ago I railed against the church because I thought they had power. As I got older, I realized that the church held very little temporal authority and was in fact the underdog in modern society, so I joined it. Then I realized that the GOP was the ideological underdog against a populist tide. I joined it to fight. Now, I see the big prize in taking a piece out of the Federal gov. Beyond that, the power is held by established business interests. Life is about searching for goliaths, belittling them and then putting that stone right between their eyes until the day you die.
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 02:32
The issue is that we want much less government and they won't give up an inch. I'm enjoying gov shutdown, but my ideal situation is effective, minimal government. I am very much in favor of anti-trust laws because I agree with you that official government is not the only beast to fear.
One of my major fears is that the powers that be are creating even more entrenched and centralized cronie trusts.
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 02:39
My one belief is in undermining authority.
Find me out the front, shootin' all my guns
Man, :daisy: these Fed c:daisy: ay!
I'm thinkin' of gettin' bugged
Talkin' shit, getting bashed cause I'm tipsy
Gotta call me savior Big J to come get me
You can find me out the front, fighting every c:daisy:
Off my head and half drunk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt2LHE3oeks
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 02:54
The problem is that what the Tea Party has done is hurting your cause. And my cause, by extension, because we both seek government reform and I'm sure there is lots we would agree on. Regardless, what the Tea Party has done is hijack the whole plane against everyone else's wishes. By the time the shut-down drama is over the Tea Party will be angrier than ever, and the establishment will look like the victim in the eyes of the sane and rational majority.
None of this is good for actual progress, and the price for all this posturing is actual hardship for the needy.
I love to make deals that work, but intransigence with me is a recipe for disaster. I can out-intransigence most. Sure, I'm easy to agree with, but if people want to play games I will just set the whole damn thing on fire because we were cavemen once, if you want to be assholes about it (not you, others). The effects of this shutdown really remain to be seen. Has anything changed for you day 3, BTW? In a material way. Have any payments not gone through or has anything been taken away from you yet? Just curious.
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 03:00
I got an email from the VA explaining that things will get bad if the shutdown runs into November, but no. Not yet. Thankfully veterans programs had a month of grace saved up.
OK. It is the second of Oct. Let's just let the thing go for a few more weeks as a compromise. Let's go for longest shutdown in US history. What is the record?
Edit: it is 21. Let's go for an even 30
Papewaio
10-04-2013, 03:16
CDC is closed? So this is how the zombies take power.
Who cares. To hell with the GOP.I think the shutdown is a win/win. If they can use to to generate some real talk about the size and scope of government- great. If it instead backfires and cripples the GOP... who cares? If they can't be a political and ideological foil to the Democrats, then to hell with them anyway. They're too often little more than scapegoats for Obama's failed policies as is. Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate and still made a hash of things... because of the Republicans, obviously.
Everything the Teabaggers say and do is loud, overly aggressive, often bigoted, patronizing, and blatantly anti intellectual. The same applies to the other side as well. If you can't see that, you need to take the blinders off.
Oh the dems say dumb stuff, but the Tea Party acts like they'd shank you for disagreeing if they could. I'm a disgruntled independent, I don't have blinders."Loud" should require no evidence. Democrats never let science get in the way (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/10/are_democrats_really_the_pro-science_party_115367.html) of their agendas and only champion it when it supports them. Tea party violence is pretty much non-existent, despite the media desperately searching for examples of it. You can find plenty of "violent (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145627-dem-lawmaker-on-labor-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary)" talk from Democratic politicians and actual acts of violence from their union thugs. Remember when libs were calling for Scott Walker's murder? (http://twitchy.com/2012/06/06/kill-scott-walker-angry-libs-flood-twitter-with-death-threats-after-wisconsin-recall-defeat/) Bigotted? Yeah, they got that covered (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-9-2013/blue-s-spews) too.
There are more examples, just look for them.
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 03:57
To claim that both sides are equally reprehensible and equally culpable is what takes some blinders to say, or at least serious disingenuity.
Compared to the Repubs, the Democrats have been Mother Teresa the past few political cycles - and that's saying something.
Fringe Democrats? Like the entire Democratic party of California?? I feel sorry for you.
Where would I find more violence? At a Tea Party rally or an OWS rally? Where is there more thugishness? At a Tea Party protest or a union protest?
To claim that both sides are equally reprehensible and equally culpable is what takes some blinders to say, or at least serious disingenuity.
Compared to the Repubs, the Democrats have been Mother Teresa the past few political cycles - and that's saying something.
10919
Has anything changed for you day 3, BTW?
Yup, longtime friend of one of my friends and workmates is now unable to get the cancer treatment she needs. Not sure on the details, but the upshot is that no fed funds = no medicine, and she may die. (In fairness, she might die with the drugs, cancer's a rotten bastard and there are no guarantees. But lack of medicine appears to make termination a more likely bit of business.)
We're looking into some crowdfunding options for her. My friend was talking Ebay or Kickstarter, but I think those a fairly obviously bad vehicles for charity.
Looking into Crowdrise. Open to suggestions. Obviously, emotions are running high.
-edit-
Dang it, need to call my accountant and get the lowdown on tax implications as well. Maybe do an automatic set-aside if this gets classified as a "gift."
Lol ya real dangerous stuff. Pelosi is irritating and corrupt, but she hasn't shut down the government over sour grapes either. What the Republicans are doing is insane.Right, and it's only anti-intellectual when you disagree with it.
Both sides are shrill, (how shrill is subjective, but I'm willing to call a draw), both parties sides are anti-intellectual- Democrats regularly throw science overboard in favor of populism. Both sides have politicians that say gobsmackingly stupid things... a fringe politician named Joe Biden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VusMmJkJU2s) comes to mind. It's easier to find violence and threats from the left than from the Tea Party.
But it's the Tea Party that's the problem. Enjoy your kool-aid, I'm out.
Papewaio
10-04-2013, 04:33
Yup, longtime friend of one of my friends and workmates is now unable to get the cancer treatment she needs. Not sure on the details, but the upshot is that no fed funds = no medicine, and she may die. (In fairness, she might die with the drugs, cancer's a rotten bastard and there are no guarantees. But lack of medicine appears to make termination a more likely bit of business.)
We're looking into some crowdfunding options for her. My friend was talking Ebay or Kickstarter, but I think those a fairly obviously bad vehicles for charity.
Looking into Crowdrise. Open to suggestions. Obviously, emotions are running high.
-edit-
Dang it, need to call my accountant and get the lowdown on tax implications as well. Maybe do an automatic set-aside if this gets classified as a "gift."
Do you have a trusted pastor who you could make a donation to a church and they could donate quid pro qo to your friends treatment
Throw in whatever positive media attention you can to the deal without upsetting the charity vehicle... Knowing the Feds it might get treated as drug money laundering :smoking:
CountArach
10-04-2013, 04:34
It's easier to find violence and threats from the left than from the Tea Party.
Remind me... which is the side with all the guns?
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 04:37
Xiahou's perspective is not surprising. The closer to your positions a group is, the more venial their flaws seem to you.
The smaller your eyes, however, the worse any opposition seems. Of course the donkey's turds look enormous when your entire field-of-vision is by default obscured by the turd of an elephant.
Papewaio
10-04-2013, 04:52
It's easier to see the splinter of the opposition then ones own plank.
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 05:01
https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/ca3080f7-c5dd-4eb5-82ab-783468667361.jpg
It's a cave, or whatever. :wiseguy:
Remind me... which is the side with all the guns?Pretty sure neither side has all the guns.
Xiahou's perspective is not surprising. The closer to your positions a group is, the more venial their flaws seem to you.
Montmorency's perspective is not surprising. The closer to your positions a group is, the more venial their flaws seem to you....
I'd continue on with your turd allusion, but I think you're already flinging (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGvD5OSkJ_Q) enough feces for the both of us.
I'm just saying the proof is in the pudding. Are you defending the Tea Party tactic of holding the budget hostage to the ACA debate? No, that is most certainly not what you said. You said they would shank you for disagreeing with you. Ironically, if a tea partier ever said in public what you said, it'd be trumpeted as proof positive of how violently disposed they are.
On to your question- I think there's a lack of understanding about our legislative processes here. The ACA was rammed thru Congress while the Democrats had control- as was their right to do. The GOP now controls the House- they initiate the spending bills. They created one without funding for the ACA- as is their right. The Senate and the President made it clear they would pass no such thing- again, that's their right.
This is where I see the disconnect. Many seem to be arguing that the only thing the GOP-run House is entitled to do is completely cave in to the Senate/President- why? This could be a great opportunity for some inter-party quid-pro-quo. Obama could kick the mandate down the road a year and extract some new taxes from the GOP in return. Or he could finally promise to approve the Keystone Pipeline in return for passing the budget he wants. The House might bite on these offers.... they might not. We're not likely to find out, because the Democratic negotiating tactic from the outset has been to tell the GOP to go screw themselves.
They're supremely confident that this shutdown will reflect badly for the GOP while leaving themselves blameless. Therefore, they feel safe in digging in their heels. Maybe they're right. But if whenever the White House trots out their latest showpiece in the Shutdown Theater and the GOP offers to fund whatever it is in a piecemeal fashion, it leaves the Democrats to actually vote against funding what they're trying to lay blame on the GOP for.
I can't help but wonder if they're being a tad over-confident here. This is a different shutdown than the Clinton-era one. That was over Medicare funding vs tax cuts- a hard PR sell for the GOP. Obamacare, on the other hand is quite unpopular. Also, Clinton was in constant negotiation with Gingrich last time- he wasn't obstinately telling the opposition that it was his way or the highway.
Like I said, the Democrats are very confident that they're on the right side of the PR war here. Maybe they are. But they're deliberately not trying to find any kind of resolution to the shutdown- because they think they don't need to. We'll see.
Montmorency
10-04-2013, 06:41
Many seem to be arguing that the only thing the GOP-run House is entitled to do is completely cave in to the Senate/President- why?
More extremism. 'If we don't get our way - all of it - then that must mean we're caving in.'
The House Republicans are entitled to use their position to moderate the activities of the rest of the Federal govt - not to suicidally body-slam themselves in pursuit of mutual destruction.
because the Democratic negotiating tactic from the outset has been to tell the GOP to go screw themselves.
Other way around. Maybe try sitting a few meters away from the manure heap?
If the Republicans favor the piecemeal approach so much, let them present a coherent case opposing each category of federal activity besides those they've so graciously offered to fund, and put out an orderly list of suggested improvements empathetic to the range of movement the Democrats might actually tolerate. This shouldn't be up to Obama. He's not the one looking for huge concessions. If the Republicans are willing to cause a huge ruckus with no goal in mind other than pure snarling rage, then it should not surprise them to be dealt with as savage wildlife. You can't negotiate with a grizzly bear - all it wants is to kill you and/or drive you out of its territory. If the Republicans want to return to the human side of things, they can of course propose a number of alternatives and workable scenarios (as opposed to 'JOIN US OR DIE'), or even a comprehensive plan for reform of the entire federal government.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The berserk chimpanzee gets put in the cage.
To an outsider the whole thing seems a bit mental. Although I suppose in the UK system, a parliamentary majority by the opposition would vote for a dissolution of parliament and a general election, rather than just shutting down the country. In some respects an election now in the US might well solve the issue. The electorate can give their opinion and the elected officials would be oblidged to go along with it.
Are there any opinion polls on what's going on? What's the general opinion? Does it just fracure on usual party lines, or are people annoyed with one side or the other more?
Congress gets paid during a shutdown, while staffers don't. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/01/congress-gets-paid-during-a-shutdown-while-staffers-dont-heres-why/)
It's one of the cruel paradoxes of the government shutdown: The politicians who are most responsible for the chaos will still get paid. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of federal workers either get sent home or see their paychecks delayed.
It's probably no news to anybody here, but it's still worth mentioning imo.
Politicians aren't just detached from reality, their detachment is institutionalised:
Blame the law. And the Constitution. And Congress for not changing the law.
(...)
The current Congress can't actually stop itself from getting paid. That's because the 27th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) specifically says that the salaries of the House and Senate can't be altered until the start of a new term. The idea was to prevent members of Congress from handing themselves a raise before an election took place.
:applause:
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 11:57
You are not really nonpartisan on this. As i've stated before - if you rely on the government for services you are a Democrat. Old Republican Americans don't know it yet, but they are hypocritical, social security /medicare junkie democrats. Everyone is a lotus eater and that is destroying the country.
You can have all of the policy positions in the world. If you love a government that coddles people and pulls your purse strings, you are a slave - even the best of us - and your position on government spending is written in stone. I want to get back to someplace sustainable, where people can have substantive federal spending negotiations without everyones livelihoods being affected. This can't seem healthy that the Federal government (a giant doomed behemoth)is all that lies between you and financial ruin.
I consider Obamacare to be a compromise (even though it was passed by Democrats) and my issues with it are now academic. As I have stated, this is merely an opportunity to shut the government down over an out of control and all-corrupting budget which seems to only be getting worse.
Ironside
10-04-2013, 12:02
You are not really nonpartisan on this. As i've stated before - if you rely on the government for services you are a Democrat. Old Republican Americans don't know it yet, but they are hypocritical, social security /medicare junkie democrats. Everyone is a lotus eater and that is destroying the country.
You can have all of the policy positions in the world. If you love a government that coddles people and pulls your purse strings, you are a slave - even the best of us - and your position on government spending is written in stone.
Up for supporting your parents and/or grandparents?
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 12:11
I plan on them living with me. They have made wise financial decisions and worked overly hard (I don't work that hard). Too many families destroy themselves with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling - and completely destroy their family connection, believing that they can just rely on government for all of their needs. People are no longer self-sufficient. I don't want to rely on a system that I despise for all of my livelihood, and I don't want to be beholden to that system when I vote.
I just want the government out of as much as possible. They aren't giving us any space anymore. Does no one else see this?
Ironside
10-04-2013, 12:52
I plan on them living with me. They have made wise financial decisions and worked overly hard (I don't work that hard). Too many families destroy themselves with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling - and completely destroy their family connection, believing that they can just rely on government for all of their needs. People are no longer self-sufficient. I don't want to rely on a system that I despise for all of my livelihood, and I don't want to be beholden to that system when I vote.
I just want the government out of as much as possible. They aren't giving us any space anymore. Does no one else see this?
Hint. If you're growing up in that family with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling you might not want to be financially responsible for your parents as well, they'll trap you, while the state liberates you. People ruined themselves that way loong before there were any state safety nets.
One of the most vital drivers for divorce is female economical independence. What does that tell you?
If you got a good family, good for you. A lot of people haven't got one. What should they do? Run away? Spend their lifetime to pay and repair something that was never really working?
As an induvidual, does the state paying for your education make your more or less free than your parents paying for it?
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 13:06
Hint. If you're growing up in that family with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling you might not want to be financially responsible for your parents as well, they'll trap you, while the state liberates you. People ruined themselves that way loong before there were any state safety nets.
One of the most vital drivers for divorce is female economical independence. What does that tell you?
If you got a good family, good for you. A lot of people haven't got one. What should they do? Run away? Spend their lifetime to pay and repair something that was never really working?
As an induvidual, does the state paying for your education make your more or less free than your parents paying for it?
Less free. You stay and work on your family. It doesn't have to be a prison if you love one another. Life without a strong family is a miserable thing. The good news is that every person can build strong family. You don't have to be related by blood. Find a spouse after years of getting to know them. Make good people aunts and uncles to your children. Be good to them. Adopt children who need support. Support those that you love.
Reliance on the State is an empty road to nowhere. Start building at home. Too many people have written off real support systems as a result to the State. While the State is a good crutch when you need one, I see people walking around every day with 10 to 20 crutches.
The only degrees that the state pays for should be online degrees. They cost a fraction of what university does and people can work while they are in school. I worked full time during school and commuted.
HopAlongBunny
10-04-2013, 13:38
From the outside looking in:
This whole schmozzle strikes me as an ideological confrontation.
Dangerous, because where faith rules everything is permitted.
Good luck avoiding the crunch :dizzy2:
ICantSpellDawg
10-04-2013, 13:45
From the outside looking in:
This whole schmozzle strikes me as an ideological confrontation.
Dangerous, because where faith rules everything is permitted.
Good luck avoiding the crunch :dizzy2:
Oh, it is. I do appreciate how how the old adage is "we don't negotiate with terrorists". The new adage is "we don't negotiate". Some people are trying to suggest that people who have policy differences are simply terrorists, failing to appreciate the difference between the violent application of terror with an interest in snipping the budget. What reasonable people we have.
HopAlongBunny
10-04-2013, 14:22
Oh but there is violence.
The policy has purposely disrupted peoples livelihood and well-being; the economic violence is directed toward bending others to a particular policy outcome; the fear created is being used coerce other parties to accede to the will of the actor (IE: they might just be crazy enough to blow us all up=>we better give in)
Violence to create fear in the pursuit of goal; what is missing from the def'n of "terrorism" ?
if you rely on the government for services you are a Democrat.
Not sure how to unpack that dense brick of wrongness.
First of all, if you think Americans vote in their economic self-interest, then you haven't done any reading on the subject (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=link+between+voting+and+economic+self-interest&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=qNxOUrDOKs_EiwL-vIHABA&ved=0CC0QgQMwAA). I mean, you haven't even glanced at Wikipedia. You haven't bothered to learn anything on the topic.
The "base" of the Republican party is old and white (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/gop-challenge-how-to-transcend-aging-white-base-20121108), and takes more Federal dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png) than any other group of non-veterans. And more importantly, they don't see it as a handout. I tried to explain to a hardcore Republican friend that his mortgage deduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_deduction#United_States) and EIT credits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit) were both middle-class payoffs. His head nearly exploded. The notion that the forgiveness of a tax debt was a payment, while obvious to anyone who has ever worked with an accountant, was utterly foreign to him. He refused the notion point-blank.
(This is pretty typical. If I'm receiving a payment or benefit, it's my hard-earned right and it's fair and it's just and equitable. If you are receiving a payment or benefit, you are a parasite and a leech and I'm not gonna pay for your damn lifestyle.)
And then there's this:
https://i.imgur.com/pYKT0GO.jpg
So, yeah. And then there's the fact that you consider me, a moderately successful dude who has actually started businesses and done okay in the private sector—what was your word?—an "outlier," or an "anomaly," or whatever the word you used.
Gah. Slowly, so the whole room can follow the idea: Americans. Do not. Vote. In their economic self-interest. (Or, to be more precise, the link between economic self-interest and voting patterns is "extremely weak," as the researchers say.)
Other point: You do not get to define who is in what party. People self-identify, and if they say they are Republicans, they are. If they say they are Democrats, they are. The moment you position yourself as superior to other people, judging who deserves to really be in one party or another ("Oh not him! He's a RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only)!"), you self-identify as an arrogant ass.
-edit-
You treat the government like a protector rather than a parasite.
Another dense package of wrongness.
I view governments, corporations, cooperatives, LLCs, partnerships, unions, armies, and navies as ways to organize human beings and resources. None is inherently superior to another; all have their appropriate application. All can be parasitic, all can be beneficial. Depends on the cirumstances, context, and (most importantly) the truth revealed by real-world application. This is called empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). It also used to be a core element of conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke), before that word got corrupted beyond all meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#United_States_2).
HoreTore
10-04-2013, 15:29
I just want the government out of as much as possible. They aren't giving us any space anymore. Does no one else see this?
....So that's why you think it's a good idea to shut down museums while letting the NSA and others operate as normal?
Fisherking
10-04-2013, 16:45
....So that's why you think it's a good idea to shut down museums while letting the NSA and others operate as normal?
I would not go there.
The park service, much like the IRS before, seems to be doing some of this in a politicized manner. Quite a few parks were de-funded in the 1980 and non-profit organizations took them over or they were national sites in private hands. The park service has cordoned off the parking lots for these sites and put up barriers to prevent entry to the facilities, even though they bear no costs for the maintenance or operation of them. In some cases they have taken extraordinary measures to prevent the public from accessing anything, at sizable expense, I might add. A lot of what is going on is for media consumption and to cause public outrage.
Between these unnecessary incontinences and the reaction to the AC plan, it may soon backfire on the administration, however. I don’t think people are totally blind, yet.
Strike For The South
10-04-2013, 19:16
My Congressman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/congressman-park-ranger-memorial_n_4037524.html
"How do you look at them and ... deny them access?" said Neugebauer. He, with most House Republicans, had voted early Sunday morning to pass a funding measure that would delay the Affordable Care Act, a vote that set up a showdown with the Senate and President Barack Obama. With the parties unable to agree on how to fund the federal government, non-essential government functions shut down Tuesday."It's difficult," responded the Park Service employee.
"Well, it should be difficult," replied the congressman, who was carrying a small American flag in his breast pocket.
"It is difficult," responded the Park Service employee. "I'm sorry, sir."
"The Park Service should be ashamed of themselves," the congressman said.
"I'm not ashamed," replied the ranger.
I hate everything
American Conservative on the GOP misinformation problem, part 1 (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-gops-misinformation-problem-in-action/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-gops-misinformation-problem-in-action)
Republicans are making all of the same mistakes that they made when they ignored all of the evidence suggesting that the GOP was likely to lose in 2012. Most of the time, the echo chamber hurts conservatives and Republicans by making them oblivious to inconvenient facts and ideas, but in this case it is leading them to believe in an alternate political reality with its own set of rules. In that alternative reality, a pointless, self-defeating effort becomes a clever political strategy, and obnoxious and politically toxic tactics are treated as normal and appropriate.
Part 2 (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-gops-misinformation-problem-in-action-ii/)
The question isn’t whether Republicans are going to lose a standoff they should never have attempted, but how quickly they can minimize the damage they are doing to themselves and to the country. Urging the GOP to “stand pat” in the hope of a “victory” that isn’t forthcoming is to encourage Republicans to maximize the harm they do to themselves and to the U.S.. It is mindless dead-ender advice that ought to be ignored, but because it flatters Republican politicians and tells them what they want to hear it will probably be taken seriously.
Best comment: (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-gops-misinformation-problem-in-action/)
If Hillary Clinton defeats Ted Cruz for the presidency in 2016, the lesson “movement” conservatives will draw is that Cruz wasn’t conservative enough.
HoreTore
10-04-2013, 21:20
Unless I'm mistaken, the NSA is every bit as hurt by this as the CDC and the oh-so-precious memorials( :rolleyes: )
I just read "non-essential" and figured national security was exempted.
I have no idea on the specifics, really(what do I care what you loonies are up to?).
CountArach
10-05-2013, 00:00
To an outsider the whole thing seems a bit mental. Although I suppose in the UK system, a parliamentary majority by the opposition would vote for a dissolution of parliament and a general election, rather than just shutting down the country. In some respects an election now in the US might well solve the issue. The electorate can give their opinion and the elected officials would be oblidged to go along with it.
We actually had something remotely comparable in Australia, where our Senate refused to pass the supply bill that our House had passed (of course as in the UK here the House is actually the part of government with more power). In that case we dissolved parliament and had a new election. We haven't got fixed parliamentary terms though, so it isn't as difficult as it would be in the US.
Are there any opinion polls on what's going on? What's the general opinion? Does it just fracure on usual party lines, or are people annoyed with one side or the other more?
All of the polls have shown that the Republicans are coming out of this much worse and that includes Independents, who typically lean more Republican on the whole. Of course partisans break much as you would expect, though there are still a not-inconsiderable number of Republicans opposing the shutdown. But that isn't to say that Obama has come out of this well at all, just less badly:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/americans-blame-republicans-government-shutdown
More Americans disapprove than approve of the job being done by all three actors in the dispute over the federal budget. President Obama comes out "ahead" in the ABC News/Washington Post poll with a -9pt approval rating. Both parties in Congress are much lower. Democrats in Congress manage to maintain a net approval of -22pt, while Republicans in Congress fall to a -37pt approval rating. These are all awful.
Fisherking
10-05-2013, 09:05
The Republican party is seriously handicapped when it comes to dealing with the public.
They never seem to get anything right.
Of course, the media does them no favors either, generally presenting things from bias towards the left.
Technically it is the Senate and the President who shut down the government by refusing to act on the House Budget Bill.
There is absolutely nothing new in this political game. It used to be known as legislation by appropriation and this is by no means the first time it has been done.
Also just because it is a law (the ACA) doesn’t mean that it has to be funded or enforced. There have been more than a couple of laws passed by Congress that the Executive Branch simply ignored.
Ironside
10-05-2013, 09:07
Less free. You stay and work on your family. It doesn't have to be a prison if you love one another. Life without a strong family is a miserable thing. The good news is that every person can build strong family. You don't have to be related by blood. Find a spouse after years of getting to know them. Make good people aunts and uncles to your children. Be good to them. Adopt children who need support. Support those that you love.
These are great tips, but there's some points here missing. Your old family did mysteriously disappear, which are often needed to start anew. It certainly helps that your wife doesn't have a territorial battle with the mother-in-law (a common occurence among the old family based farmers). You don't need to finance them either.
And finding a new one is something that comes with aging and maturing, something you don't have when young.
And that's not counting those old people without children, for whatever reason.
Reliance on the State is an empty road to nowhere. Start building at home. Too many people have written off real support systems as a result to the State. While the State is a good crutch when you need one, I see people walking around every day with 10 to 20 crutches.
The reason why the state systems exists are because what you call real support is unreliable. The US are more charitiable than Europe, but that's far from covering the difference in taxes. People doesn't crash and burn because they know they have support system and there's way too many people who are addicted to those crutches. Take away the state's ones and they'll find new ones. Make them learn to walk, walk with them and yet they'll immidiatly run back to those crutches when they have the chance. Repeat ad nauseum.
It's not the state that makes them do this, it's who they are.
While not a common topic, start to listen about the snippets you get about people's families. Seriously, it's no wonder why it has always been a common book topic.
The only degrees that the state pays for should be online degrees. They cost a fraction of what university does and people can work while they are in school. I worked full time during school and commuted.
That depends on what you did read. There's a lot of difference in work effort between different programs.
https://i.imgur.com/pYKT0GO.jpg
"Balance the budget!!! But don't touch the 80% that's holy (debt interest, military, social security and medicare/aid)! And don't you dare raise the taxes!
I think there's way too many Republicans that don't know how much those programs cost. If you feel that they're about a third of the budget, of course the state is big and wasteful.
Gaius Scribonius Curio
10-05-2013, 09:42
Technically it is the Senate and the President who shut down the government by refusing to act on the House Budget Bill.
Or, equally, it is the House's fault for refusing to act on the revised Bill which has been handed back by the Senate...
Gaius Scribonius Curio
10-05-2013, 10:17
I'd be less disgusted with Obama and the dems if they would negotiate instead of pretending that the Republicans don't have them by the balls--as usual, because Dems are smug and ineffective at anything they try to do. Both parties are trying to be something they are not.
While I can appreciate the logic of this position, there comes a point where trying to negotiate with someone whose aims are opposition and obstruction is pointless. The conservative party is almost always in the position of strength. All they have to do to hold one branch and forbid everything. That in the US this can lead to a total shutdown of government is a weakness of the system, though one that is in accord with Libertarian ideals.
At some point (and you can debate whether this is the appropriate time) the Democrats have to make a stand, or, as indeed has happened, the Republicans will use every budget/debt ceiling debate to try and seize concessions....
Fisherking
10-05-2013, 12:48
Or, equally, it is the House's fault for refusing to act on the revised Bill which has been handed back by the Senate...
All spending originates from the House of Representatives. It is not rally the Senates place to offer spending bills. It is actually a pretty arrogant measure for them to do so. So, NO!
Gaius Scribonius Curio
10-05-2013, 13:10
Spending bills originate with the House: it is the Senate's right to amend it.
My point: it cuts both ways. If the Senate is at fault for not passing the bill unamended, the House is at fault for ignoring the amendments and trying again to pass the unamended bill.
ICantSpellDawg
10-05-2013, 14:20
It really is pretty simple. One side wants one thing, the other side wants something close, but no cigar. Republicans are playing for negotiation to push them to support something that they dont want, democrats are going for the long game, an attempt to destroy opposition and get everything that they want without giving anything in.
Barack Obama is a radical, just like we are. He will make his position sound like he just wants to prevent shutdowns in the future (he can't) or that he is the only one who cares about working families (he doesn't really), but he is just playing a game. He will let it go long because he wants to win.
One way or the other, we will force sacrifice on their end. This is hurting their supporters. We will make it go for a month, longer and they will default on loans, be forced to cancel trips, cut back on cable. It is a question of whether the political elites who represent them will pay the price, or the constituents who cant afford it. But there is no such thing as getting what you want and sacrificing nothing, Barack just wants to make you think that there is. If I lose personally, I would find solace that my opponents lost as well. I don't appreciate it when people don't want to negotiate as I love to negotiate all day long.
There is a price to be paid for having all of your supporters beholden to government (except for a few saints, you know who you are). When we figure out a way to turn off the spigot, your side suffers disproportionately.
I have no idea if any Republicans think like me, so this is just my attempt to rationalize actions by political circles that I cannot possibly understand. I haven't watched fox news in years, never listen to talk radio. This is just what I would do when facing an opposition and their nonchalant minions. It is just banter, before you get your panties in a bunch. I don't really like Democrats and I don't care about all of the stuff that people have accumulated, so give me a break before you are say that we are ruining peoples "livelihoods". It is just stuff. If they want it bad enough, they should be asking their Senators to negotiate.
This is politics in a democratic system, not violence in an Islamic theocracy, not a communist overthrow, not feudal raiding of villages with all of the raping and killing. We aren't the devil. If you want something that we have, get ready to give us something that we want. Stop whining.
ICantSpellDawg
10-05-2013, 15:12
Also, this will never stop happening. The American people have irreconcilable differences. We don't want to be one nation. You want a government that has nothing to do with a world that I want to live in. We can't secede, that is not allowed or feasable, and we won't just die off wholesale. Continuing Resolutions are a compromise of sorts, because no actual appropriations can be agreed on. Every year, your ideas of spending will fail to match ours and we will be able to shut down the government unless we have absolutely no political power whatsoever. If you refuse to negotiate, you will simply have gridlock. Forever. It will never end for you.
An alternative route is to push progressive programs where you can get them and allow our radicalism to hammer out the budget and force us to make hard choices on what must remain. You know that the budget will still increase forever, somehow. You don't have to give us a concession on the individual mandate delay if it isn't politically feasible to do so, BTW. Help us shut down the postal service, increase online education grants while cutting spending on traditional college loans. Help us kill roaming expense beasts which fail to serve any master these days and we will be negotiating.
Your refusal to negotiate on ever expanding waste is not becoming or a "reasonable, moderate" approach.
Fisherking
10-05-2013, 17:02
Spending bills originate with the House: it is the Senate's right to amend it.
My point: it cuts both ways. If the Senate is at fault for not passing the bill unamended, the House is at fault for ignoring the amendments and trying again to pass the unamended bill.
They are both at fault. Don’t get me wrong. Blaming one side and not the other is just ignoring reality and their silly political games.
Negotiation and compromise is what politics is about. That would occur if only one party had control.
We should be screaming at both Houses of Congress to compromise and get on with business. And tell the President to stop the games to make his side look good and lesson the impact.
The ACA is flawed and needs reworked, not necessarily to something the Republicans want but to something both sides can live with and actually help some people.
If you go through the provisions of the law I am sure you would agree.
But are the Republicans willing to compromise in a way that the ACA does get funded or do the Democrats just have to give up their most important goal while the Republicans give up some minor stuff that doesn't bother them much?
Fisherking
10-05-2013, 20:29
I don’t know about that. If the Executive Branch keeps trying to make people suffer from the closure much more they may just get a backlash.
In addition to closing boat launches and parking lots they have involved the military in preventing chaplains from performing Sunday services and now there is word they want to close the Gulf of Mexico! Or at least a sizable portion of it.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/05/nps-rangers-patrol-newest-%E2%80%98government-shutdown%E2%80%99-closure-ocean
They seem to have told Wisconsin to close their parks too, as they provide some funding but evidently the lemur state, or badger state, told them to take a hike.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-05-2013, 21:03
Spending bills originate with the House: it is the Senate's right to amend it.
My point: it cuts both ways. If the Senate is at fault for not passing the bill unamended, the House is at fault for ignoring the amendments and trying again to pass the unamended bill.
Well, both of you are correct according to the Constitution. In practice, however, it has become the expected norm that the President proposes a budget which is then introduced in the House by someone form his (so far only his) party.
Ellis and Anderson, both conflict scholars, note in their book that there are two "macro" categories for conflict resolution: struggle and negotiation.
Struggle tends to be the choice by any and all conflicting parties until they become convinced that they cannot unilaterally impose their preferred resolution. Negotiation becomes the choice when the cost of struggle is too high or when the outcome of struggle efforts fall short. It is a sad truth that few parties opt for negotiation as a first choice.
So far, the costs have not become high enough to the participants either to force one side to capitulate or to shift their resolution efforts to negotiation.
Both sides are using the term negotiation, but they seek capitulation. There have been no negotiations thus far, only non-violent forms of "struggle."
Sarmatian
10-05-2013, 22:21
This is generally the problem that can arise when the head of government isn't chosen by the representative body that approves government actions.
I assume this isn't the first time the president's party didn't have majority in the congress - how has it been solved in the past?
Fisherking
10-05-2013, 22:58
If the shutdown was a reasonable Republican tactic then executive dictation to state programs that recieve federal funding is also legit.
Both sides are playing dirty but Republicans started it. A neutral mind should not have trouble understanding why Obama and the Dems might want to have the showdown play out rather than risk these gerrymandered Tea Partiers doing it again and again. Who started it is important, and republicans really started this in 2010. The hope, I imagine, is that the ultra minority who is responsible for the Tea Partiers who caused the shut-down will lose hope. I don't think Obama and the dems understand that these people are deluded into thinking the dems literally caused the shut-down.
Do you actually think that either party controls he moral high ground here?
You are blinded by the thought that the Republicans may gain something to see the politicalization of an apparatus that is supposed to serve you, not a political party or their corporate sponsors.
Sorry, but what the administration is doing with these temper tantrums is not only wrong, it is plain dangerous and a gross abuse of power.
Don’t let the hatred of the one blind you to the wrongs of the other. Neither has your interests nor the interests of the country in mind. It is just a power play and no matter who wins, you lose.
We may not like what Congress is doing but it is nothing new and not a threat to the nation. I would not say the same for the actions taking place in the executive branch. Remember administrations change but what one gets away with the next will push to new heights.
Rhyfelwyr
10-05-2013, 23:10
Honestly the best things Republicans could do to save their party is to distance themselves from FOX and the Tea Party. That stuff is toxic to most of my generation
I always thought they appealed to an older demographic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hzhI4i0Kgs
So what do we make of this then?
a completely inoffensive name
10-06-2013, 00:02
Who else but Dawg is literally asking for the partial collapse of society?
Right wingers in here only make it harder for themselves politically when they try to shift the blame away from the Tea Party insurgency by resorting to the very tired shtick of "It takes two to tango, Democrats are just as bad."
As much as you want to deny it, you can't accuse "Big Government" liberals of wanting to shut down their precious government.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs Republicans who oppose shutdown (http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/us-chamber-of-commerce-backs-republicans-who-oppose-shutdown/31422)
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that it will make campaign donations to Republicans that vote to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, putting it at loggerheads with the Tea Party.
That is significant, because The Chamber provides a financial counter balance to House incumbents that could face a primary challenger if they support a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the operation of the U.S. government or to raise the sovereign debt that can be issued by the United States Treasury to avoid a default. [...]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), last month came forward with a large number of Wall St. CEOS against the shutdown and expressed that failure to raise the debt ceiling could do substantial economic damage. A default would trigger an acute worldwide financial crisis by undermining confidence in U.S. Treasury Bills. Congressional Republicans are refusing to raise it unless a list of demands is met - several of which have nothing to do with spending or debt and are more political in nature.
Some influential Republican donors are now threatening to withhold their contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee over the shutdown strategy, the Daily Beast reports. The organization’s chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, told attendees at a closed door meeting last month that Republicans were forced into the shutdown by its hard right Tea Party wing and that candidates that objected to it would lose primaries.
Anecdotal reports have shown that at least some Republicans that signed up for insurance through the state exchanges now like the law, but the sourcing is patchy, and only time will tell what the public really thinks. A majority of Americans did not support a shutdown over defunding the law - whether they liked it or not.
A majority vote in the House would end the shutdown, but that hasn’t happened due to an informal ‘rule’ attributed to former House Speaker Denny Hastert that will not allow a piece of legislation to come to the floor unless it’s backed by a majority of the majority. Hastert has recently disowned it and downplayed its significance during his term.
Pretty good analysis (http://nymag.com/news/politics/nationalinterest/government-shutdown-2013-10/index1.html)
The standoff embroiling Washington represents far more than the specifics of the demands on the table, or even the prospect of economic calamity. It is an incipient constitutional crisis. Obama foolishly set the precedent in 2011 that he would let Congress jack him up for a debt-ceiling hike. He now has to crush the practice completely, lest it become ritualized. Obama not only must refuse to trade concessions for a debt-ceiling hike; he has to make it clear that he will endure default before he submits to ransom. To pay a ransom now, even a tiny one, would ensure an endless succession of debt-ceiling ransoms until, eventually, the two sides fail to agree on the correct size of the ransom and default follows.
This is a domestic Cuban Missile Crisis. A single blunder could have unalterable consequences: If Obama buckles his no-ransom stance, the debt-ceiling-hostage genie will be out of the bottle. If Republicans believe he is bluffing, or accept his position but obstinately refuse it, or try to lift the debt ceiling and simply botch the vote count, a second Great Recession could ensue. [...]
This is a fight with no rules. The power struggle will be resolved as a pure contest of willpower.
In our Founders’ defense, it’s hard to design any political system strong enough to withstand a party as ideologically radical and epistemically closed as the contemporary GOP. (Its proximate casus belli—forestalling the onset of universal health insurance—is alien to every other major conservative party in the industrialized world.) The tea-party insurgents turn out to be right that the Obama era has seen a fundamental challenge to the constitutional order of American government. They were wrong about who was waging it.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2013, 17:24
An interesting take. Presumes that challenging the current approach to governance/status quo is inherently incorrect.
I suspect the Tea Party response would run along the lines of:
The Constitution has been honored in the breach for too long, any crisis we are precipitating is to bring us back in line with the founders original intent of a more specifically limited federal government.
I am not a tea party rep, so I might be incorrect, but that is my guestimate of their position.
Even so, the potential repercussions from the post above are valid concerns. A USA in default would, at least in the next few years, create economic problems. I don't think the "potential world war three" allusion is anything but hyperbole, but I am certain that a default would create quite a deal of hardship -- a notable recession would be a virtual certainty.
The Constitution has been honored in the breach for too long, any crisis we are precipitating is to bring us back in line with the founders original intent of a more specifically limited federal government.
To which I would say: If you want to radically change the nature and scope of our government, the place to get that mandate is the ballot box. Not by threatening to blow up the world economy.
So yeah, this does have some of the shape of a constitutional crisis.
Does anyone know how we arrived at this cockeyed system of separating spending from the authorization to pay for it? Seems that the only nations that do this are us and Denmark. Where did this lopsided beast come from?
Sarmatian
10-07-2013, 17:49
a notable recession would be a virtual certainty.
Understatement of the century.
But US won't default.
Greyblades
10-07-2013, 17:51
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/open_letter.png
Spot-on: (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/07/there-is-no-there-there/)
I see absolutely no [Republican] strategy to deal with what everyone agrees is a deeply dysfunctional and grotesquely inefficient healthcare system. I see no viable way to bring down the long-term debt, because such a goal can only be achieved in our system with compromises from both parties, and the GOP is offering nothing the Democrats want. That’s why this is such a serious crisis, because the key driver of it has no real idea what it wants to do except destroy a re-elected president. [...]
This crisis has almost nothing to do with actual policy – as you can see from a base Republican’s rational support for a single-payer healthcare system and willingness to get Obamacare insurance. There is nothing to the current Republican strategy but blind, irrational hatred for a re-elected president: “I don’t like him, and I don’t feel comfortable with anything he’s got to do with.” Somehow, this “feeling” must be granted some “relief”, or they will bring down the world economy.
http://youtu.be/Y5J_kao6mwA
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2013, 18:48
Convenience. The founding fathers barely started dying off before the Supreme Court was arbitrating between the executive and the legislative. You could say it all started with the setting up of a national bank...
Actually, you can blame Alex for quite a lot besides that. He was, effectively, the person who founded the political party system in the USA. The Constitution was written, in part, to PREVENT such using the college of electors as a brake against populism and demagoguery and by giving the Vice Presidency to the second vote getter (likely to be an opponent in any party contest) and by forcing those in office to face the voters frequently. Despite that, Hamilton had a party functioning effectively by the 3rd election.
Well, from a cursory Google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Legislative_history), looks like the "debt ceiling" got rolling in 1917, so if we're blaming Hamilton, we gotta do it indirectly.
Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. The Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed the Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave the Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued. The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.
Prior to the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the debt ceiling played an important role since Congress had few opportunities to hold hearings and debates on the budget. James Surowiecki argued that the debt ceiling lost its usefulness after these reforms to the budget process.
In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephardt Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by the Republican Congress in 1995.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2013, 19:24
Spot-on: (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/07/there-is-no-there-there/)
I see absolutely no [Republican] strategy to deal with what everyone agrees is a deeply dysfunctional and grotesquely inefficient healthcare system. I see no viable way to bring down the long-term debt, because such a goal can only be achieved in our system with compromises from both parties, and the GOP is offering nothing the Democrats want. That’s why this is such a serious crisis, because the key driver of it has no real idea what it wants to do except destroy a re-elected president. [...]
This crisis has almost nothing to do with actual policy – as you can see from a base Republican’s rational support for a single-payer healthcare system and willingness to get Obamacare insurance. There is nothing to the current Republican strategy but blind, irrational hatred for a re-elected president: “I don’t like him, and I don’t feel comfortable with anything he’s got to do with.” Somehow, this “feeling” must be granted some “relief”, or they will bring down the world economy.
For some it may be blind, irrational hatred of the President. Such yahoos are out there.
For the bulk of the Tea Party crowd and their fellow travelers, it is more a question of fear than of hate. They truly believe that the ACA is not simply a means of improving healthcare coverage but a stepping stone to national health care; that it is the continuation of America's transformation from a republic of individual states to a federal monolith. They view this as their chance to stop another Medicare or Welfare before it can take root and make itself another "3rd rail." And they fear such a transformation just as they loathe those elements: Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, that have already been enacted.
Why such a sense of fear over a program intended to promote a better society for all persons? Because they see the future as a disaster waiting to happen when the social safety net becomes unsupportable. Try a read of some of Christopher Nuttall's work if you don't believe people can think about it that way. I assure you, quite a number do.
Me? I am not so sure. I don't sit around wondering if Obama is really seeking to create an American version of Stalin's Soviet Russia. I am certain he is not. I do not believe there is some grand plan to "rule them all and in the darkness bind them." Outside of sword and sorcery fiction, it comes off a bit cheesy. But I do have doubts about the economic supportability of a program of government trending towards the enforcement of "equality of outcome" rather than of opportunity.
So yeah, this does have some of the shape of a constitutional crisis.
I believe this is precisely what we are in now. I used to believe that there was a lot of wisdom in the way our government was created, with separation of powers between the branches, as well as with the distribution of powers between the states and the federal government. However, I have begun to have serious reservations over the quality of our entire system of government. As I now see it, any system of government that allows an impasse like this to occur is so fundamentally flawed as to be actively dangerous. Our current system of government is broken and no harping on about the wisdom of lots of old dead guys will change that fact. While the system worked relatively well for nearly 200 years (minus a minor civil war), I do not hold out much hope of us ever recovering from the current crisis. Now that minority parties have figured out how to block the entire working of the government, there is nothing to stop them from continuing to do that in the future, absent a total overhaul of the redistricting system, which itself I believe is impossible. Essentially, they can't put the rabbit back in the hat. As such, I am concerned that we have before us decades of political turmoil of this nature. The only alternative is going the French route and simply creating a new Republic with a new Constitution, but that's basically impossible too.
For the bulk of the Tea Party crowd and their fellow travelers, it is more a question of fear than of hate. [...] They view this as their chance to stop another Medicare or Welfare before it can take root and make itself another "3rd rail." And they fear such a transformation just as they loathe those elements: Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, that have already been enacted.
Yes, I remember how outraged and fearful they were when the last completely unfunded expansion to Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D) was enacted.
Oh, wait ... that's right ... they didn't give a hoot.
Nah, not buying it. I believe that may be a rationale, but if the hard right actually gave a damn about deficits and debt, they would behave differently when governing.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2013, 20:14
Yes, it may well qualify as a constitutional crisis. I hadn't framed it in those terms in my mind yet, but you make a nice point.
CrossLOPER
10-07-2013, 21:30
When Soldiers aren't paid what they are owed, a nation is in deep trouble.
Russian Federation forces are doing great.
Kralizec
10-07-2013, 22:48
Just to be clear...
A lot of Republican representatives are toeing the Tea Party line, not necessarily because they agree with it themselves, but because they feel they have more to fear from a challenger in their primaries than from their Democratic opponent.
They proceed to (ab)use the fact that at least some Republican votes are needed to approve a budget, by forcing even the moderate Republicans to toe the Tea Party line. So a sub-part of of a majority in one of the three elected Federal offices (the others being the senate and POTUS) is effectively shutting everything down to get their way on one single issue.
Isn't this strategy self-defeating? I mean that certain individual Republicans in the House might be right in that their constituency will probably vote "R" anyway but that their biggest competition comes from the Tea Party in the primaries. But in constituencies that are less certain, the majority of the voters might chose to vote Democratic instead of someone who will support anything, no matter how stupid, as long as it pleases the Tea Party.
In short: are the HoR Republicans more concerned about keeping their own office than the long-term interests of their own party? If yes, doesn't the RNC have anything to say about this?
Gaius Scribonius Curio
10-07-2013, 23:23
An interesting consideration of US paralysis from the Australian perspective. (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/07/australia-us-government-default-economy)
'If the USS America goes down, little HMAS Australia will find it tough not to get sucked into the vortex'
'No one really knows what will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised. Views range from, it’ll be fine, to it’ll be Armageddon. The US Treasury for its part has put out a paper that paints a pretty scary picture.
After looking at what has occurred in 2011 when the US nearly reached the debt limit, it concluded that a debt default “could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth”.
It also noted that “many private-sector analysts believing that it would lead to events of the magnitude of late 2008 or worse, and the result then was a recession more severe than any seen since the Great Depression”.
And just in case you are a glass-half-full kind of person and you still have some optimism, the report ends on this less than upbeat note: “Considering the experience of countries around that world that have defaulted on their debt... [the] consequences, including high interest rates, reduced investment, higher debt payments, and slow economic growth, could last for more than a generation.”
Cheery...
Our economy is like a dinghy in the ocean of the international economy. If the US scuttles itself though political intransigence, without another mining boom, little HMAS Australia would find it tough not to get sucked into the vortex as USS America goes down.'
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2013, 23:38
Isn't this strategy self-defeating? I mean that certain individual Republicans in the House might be right in that their constituency will probably vote "R" anyway but that their biggest competition comes from the Tea Party in the primaries. But in constituencies that are less certain, the majority of the voters might chose to vote Democratic instead of someone who will support anything, no matter how stupid, as long as it pleases the Tea Party.
In short: are the HoR Republicans more concerned about keeping their own office than the long-term interests of their own party? If yes, doesn't the RNC have anything to say about this?
Many GOP reps, even in moderate districts, have a hard corps of Taxed Enough Already sympathizers among their normal GOP voting base. If they lose that chunk of voters (usually a highly motivated slice of their district's voters) because they oppose the TEA holy grail of knocking out Obamacare, they may lose the edge they need to best the DEM running against them. So, even in districts where the TEA party enjoys only marginal favor, that slice may represent the margin of victory for a GOP incumbent.
The TEA party's influence is, therefore, somewhat broader than one might suppose from its raw percentage.
Latest Pew poll apparently shows the US public more or less evenly split with 44% blaming GOP and 42% blaming Obama and the Dems. Though apparently, that was in a forced choice kinda question. There is a huge group that thinks they are all being idiots, regardless of party.
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 01:39
One way to make sure that the US stops borrowing money is to blow out the credit rating. It would force hard choices to be made. Skyrocket taxes and cut government or just slash and burn government. It could be a way to terminate nearly every government employee and start from an actual baseline, figuring out what is actually necessary expense moving forward. Farmland in the midwest wouldnt be able to be paid to lie dormant, in an attempt to bank on the increase in cost of food, farmers would have more incentive to produce than the government had money to pay. The purchasing power of all nations would rise and increase their ability to afford food. More food would hit the global marketplace. I'm in favor of a temporary expansion of the timit, but as a constituent, even if I lost my job, I could be persuaded to support a credit correction by way of default. That is the beauty of ideology over the rest. It is harder to take an individual hostage if they have a principled stoicism. Or very little could happen. Let's try it. Live a little
Seamus Fermanagh
10-08-2013, 02:25
GC:
I just don't see the yahoo percentage among the TEA crowd being that high. Mostly Ayn Rand FTW types, not stosstruppen.
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 02:40
Most tea partiers just want to go back in time. The reality is that tons of people are going to be losing their jobs over the next 20 years with very little job creation. Taxes are going to skyrocket and the economy is going to tank because people really aren't necessary for technological or economic growth anymore. Low taxes and individual freedom will be a thing of the past. We all know it, but who wants to live in a world like that? It will be like wall-e meets the matrix. Maybe the meaning of life was to find a way to make work obsolete. We have done a bang up job, we just need to find a way to feed people until they all die out from natural causes. Or until they can just live forever.
FTW!
Shaka_Khan
10-08-2013, 03:08
Russian Federation forces are doing great.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not Russian so I'm not saying this out of nationalism. The dire situation of the Russian army that you think about happened during the 90s and early 2000s. Russia is recovering and her army are being well-fed. Russia developed new advanced weapons a few years ago. In fact, Moscow has the most billionaires in the world according to a global rich list, although the wealth gap is still a problem.
a completely inoffensive name
10-08-2013, 03:09
This is not a constitutional crisis. This is a civic duty crisis.
The strength of any Republic lies in the strength of the public's constitution.
I am only 21 years of age. My hands are not completely clean of ignorant political practice. But the country that has repeatedly given Congress with a 10% approval rating a generous 90% incumbent rate, every two years, decade after decade has no sympathy for me.
Us Americans love to pay lip to personal responsibility and yet strive for lives completely devoid of even the most basic of communal duties that all free men are born with.
I disagree, but its an outlandish scenario either way IMO.
I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.
On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.
Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?
CountArach
10-08-2013, 03:44
But the country that has repeatedly given Congress with a 10% approval rating a generous 90% incumbent rate, every two years, decade after decade has no sympathy for me.
That is because, by and large, people do in fact like their own congressperson:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx
I am never surprised by the low ratings that 'Congress' gets in polls. Take the current Republican-controlled Congress at any point. If you asked the average Democrat if they approved or disapproved then, from a purely partisan standpoint, most of them will say disapprove because they don't think it is progressive enough. So that is a substantial portion of the population against you already. Then you consider those who are to the right of the average Republican and they will also disapprove. Then you have Republicans who will disapprove because they think that Congress hasn't pushed its agenda hard enough. Then there are Republicans who will disapprove because they think there are too many Democrats or they perceive Democrats as standing in the way of an agenda. Not only that but it is a fairly common thing for the media to create narratives that focus primarily on conflict, so what is presented is a picture of an ineffective institution (which, by all accounts, is not too inaccurate), which is constantly bickering and this will throw further people offside. So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).
Anyway that's neither here nor there, just a random sidenote.
CountArach
10-08-2013, 03:49
Anyway actually on topic I found this comment (http://www.omaha.com/article/20131004/NEWS/131009431/1685) utterly despicable:
Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., was blunt when asked if he would continue collecting his paychecks during the shutdown.
“Dang straight,” he said.
Terry suggested it's an irrelevant question because the situation would be resolved before long.
What about the other members who were donating or forgoing their pay?
“Whatever gets them good press,” Terry said. “That's all that it's going to be. God bless them. But you know what? I've got a nice house and a kid in college, and I'll tell you we cannot handle it. Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That's just not going to fly.”
Yes. Because I am absolutely sure that none of the furloughed workers had a house repayment to make or a kid in college.
Just to be clear I have no problem with Congresspeople accepting their pay cheques while they are working, but FFS at least have some tact when you are doing it.
a completely inoffensive name
10-08-2013, 04:01
That is because, by and large, people do in fact like their own congressperson:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx
I am never surprised by the low ratings that 'Congress' gets in polls. Take the current Republican-controlled Congress at any point. If you asked the average Democrat if they approved or disapproved then, from a purely partisan standpoint, most of them will say disapprove because they don't think it is progressive enough. So that is a substantial portion of the population against you already. Then you consider those who are to the right of the average Republican and they will also disapprove. Then you have Republicans who will disapprove because they think that Congress hasn't pushed its agenda hard enough. Then there are Republicans who will disapprove because they think there are too many Democrats or they perceive Democrats as standing in the way of an agenda. Not only that but it is a fairly common thing for the media to create narratives that focus primarily on conflict, so what is presented is a picture of an ineffective institution (which, by all accounts, is not too inaccurate), which is constantly bickering and this will throw further people offside. So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).
Anyway that's neither here nor there, just a random sidenote.
I understand all of that. My point is that believing that your Congressman is the golden idol among the monsters that inhabit Congress is a symptom of the abdication of political responsibilities. People either don't vote or they pick a side and love their Congressman for the pork they chastise others for.
None of this has anything to do with the way government is structured. It is because of people who believe that Nader is the devil for splitting the liberal vote. Voters self identify as the party they belong to. Thus an attack on the party is an attack on ones self. This perfectly sums up the temper tantrums and enabling of both Congressmen and voters alike. The duty of every citizen is to look out for the American community as a whole, this concept has been completely lost.
Hence why we have zealots like Dawg advocating for nothing less than collapse of our standard of living in order to satisfy his own conception of what the perfect life is.
Montmorency
10-08-2013, 04:03
So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).
That's what happens when you work backwards from a conclusion.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
Seamus Fermanagh
10-08-2013, 04:22
I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.
On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.
Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?
A bit of both really. The bulk of our media, aside from Fox News and the WSJ, are populated (heavily) by people who are politically left-leaning themselves. They don't set out to slant their coverage per se -- and can and do hammer any and all politicians with tough questions from time to time -- but in a hundred little things like word choice, body language, eye contact or tone of voice they (possibly unknowingly) slant their coverage (I recall a couple of posts by Euro.orgers who visited the US, saw our news programs first hand for a change, and were appalled at the bias). So yes, to some extent, you see a biased view from our media that represents our political left as rational intellectuals and our political right as ideologues and airheads. Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be, just as Obama is not the would-be Stalinist our right wing radio pundits demagogue about.
That having been said, there are a fair number of Americans who seek out our right-leaning radio media gurus to reinforce their own belief that their beliefs will and should be triumphant and skimp on the thinking part. There are not enough right wingers out there who, like myself, force themselves to listen to Rachel Maddow et al so as to consider a different perspective on the issue. Ignorance may be bliss, but it does make for ideological fanaticism. Also, remember that the USA has an anti-intellectual tradition of long standing (Common Sense and Street Smarts are usually depicted as wiser/better/cooler than formal education; labeling someone as "book smart" is meant as an insult) and politicians strive mightily to be seen as "just another citizen," "homespun," or down to earth.
Small points: I would probably loathe her policy initiatives, but acknowledge that Clinton has very much been groomed for the Presidency and probably has enough spine and intelligence to acquit herself well. Bachman clearly did not have anything resembling that level of gravitas, which is why she good a swift trip out of the primaries last go around. Palin as well simply doesn't have the depth and breadth of experience the position OUGHT to require. I actually think you're going to see a serious run made by Jeb Bush this next time around. Cruz and Paul might challenge that, as might Rubio -- it is early days.
I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.
On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.
Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?
I don't identify as conservative or support the Republican Party but I do believe that conservatives aren't always as incompetent as they appear. Utah, the state that I live in is, is overwhelmingly Republican and has been ranked as one of the best managed states in the nation. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/11/idUS225206+11-Mar-2008+BW20080311)
I also agree with Seamus that the media has a role in our perception of the Republican Party. I happened to be in Alaska during Troopergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal) and the impression I received of Sarah Palin then was different than the one I received during her Vice Presidential candidacy. She seemed more savvy and intelligent, and she was not the naive bimbo presented in the media during the 2008 presidential election.
Ironside
10-08-2013, 10:24
but in a hundred little things like word choice, body language, eye contact or tone of voice they (possibly unknowingly) slant their coverage (I recall a couple of posts by Euro.orgers who visited the US, saw our news programs first hand for a change, and were appalled at the bias). So yes, to some extent, you see a biased view from our media that represents our political left as rational intellectuals and our political right as ideologues and airheads. Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be, just as Obama is not the would-be Stalinist our right wing radio pundits demagogue about.
Any idea why? I mean journalists in general seems to be trending left, in the same way that the military trends right, but at least serious Swedish media tries to be neutral on the news and facts, with the bias coming in the analysis. They're of course accused of having a left wing bias on average and you can probably see a lot of bias on what news that's decided to be pushed, but during the programmes themselves, they try to be even handed.
Anyway, I suspect the echo-chamber has completely destroyed any factchecking. How many Americans do you think knows that Obama has been running most of his years with the lowest taxes in 50 years and that more than 75% of the expenses are bound up by medicare/aid, social security, interest and military?
HoreTore
10-08-2013, 10:46
Most tea partiers just want to go back in time.
Their problem is that the time they want to go back to never existed in the first place.
Sarmatian
10-08-2013, 10:54
Their problem is that the time they want to go back to never existed in the first place.
Like most self-respecting fascists.
HoreTore
10-08-2013, 11:10
Like most self-respecting fascists.
Well, fascism is revolutionary in nature; even though their intended modernization draws heavily on a mythical past. Mussolini's Italy wasn't an attempt to recreate the Roman Empire, even though he drew heavily on it for justification.
In many ways, the Tea Party is similar, with the difference that they do not seem to be aware of it. Their 'golden age' never existed, so what they aim for is new and revolutionary.
I understand all of that. My point is that believing that your Congressman is the golden idol among the monsters that inhabit Congress is a symptom of the abdication of political responsibilities. People either don't vote or they pick a side and love their Congressman for the pork they chastise others for.
None of this has anything to do with the way government is structured. It is because of people who believe that Nader is the devil for splitting the liberal vote. Voters self identify as the party they belong to. Thus an attack on the party is an attack on ones self. This perfectly sums up the temper tantrums and enabling of both Congressmen and voters alike. The duty of every citizen is to look out for the American community as a whole, this concept has been completely lost.
Hence why we have zealots like Dawg advocating for nothing less than collapse of our standard of living in order to satisfy his own conception of what the perfect life is.
Yeah, you'd think people are selfish if you didn't know they're all good christians.
Kadagar_AV
10-08-2013, 12:16
America is such a big country that there are no truly acceptable answers to those questions.
Really? America is a country these days :inquisitive:
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 12:18
You guys are all just angry and you don't know where to aim your anger, so you aim it at the GOP. What do you think would happen to your paychecks if the GOP just ceased to exist? Utopia would ensue? I say let's call your bluff and eliminate the GOP. The imaginary world that you live in where the GOP makes it impossible to govern when you control the other House, the executive and nearly every bureaucrat is on your side. It is not incumbent on the party that is against government to just cave to your statist whims. We win when the government fails to expand.
Long story short - spending increases vs what we take in seem to be unstoppable. You know this is the case and it leads directly to increased government consumption of your assets and income. We want major cuts to Federal programs, but all we get are major increases to Federal programs. People tell you that every program is absolutely essential for you to just continue living your life. You must know that this is BS. We can create new programs and allow the government to expand, but in your own interest you must know that there are places that we can seriously cut back.
Why are people villains for demanding accounting transparency and a walk back of nonessential services? A re-definition of what an "essential service" is. Should the government just continue expanding, exponentially and raising it's take of your take, all while showing you more and more contempt in its regulations and law? What do you think is supposed to happen? But you have found a villain to make yourselves feel better while you are swindled. If it wasn't so awful it would be humorous.
The US government is no longer a protector of your rights. It is a guardian of a kaleidoscope of entrenched interest which have nothing to do with you as an individual. It no longer deserves your loyalty even though the law demands it. The founding fathers were a bunch of seditionists who rebelled against a government which held them in contempt. We can do better and times are changing.
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 12:52
I have a long question.
You guys can't accuse me of being a racist, because I believe that all people should be given a blank slate to prove themselves and I reject the idea that some hold themselves above others because of their upbringing or backgrounds.
You can't call me a fascist because I want to diminish the role and power of government over the lives of individuals. I am a soft on crime Republican.
I want to reform the immigration system to make it easier to migrate to the United States and exist as a human being with protected rights.
I don't reject the idea that the health system is broken and needed to be fixed and that the ACA is probably better than single payer for the purposes of individual liberty.
What are you guys accusing me of being? An asshole, being crazy? I'm a moderate Republican, but you have left us no choice with the endless expansion of government. I see the next few years as the last time that we will have to keep the government out of our lives. You accuse me of being old fashioned. Old fashioned is the government controlling your life. Government involvement in the lives of individuals needs to be scaled back. It is absolutely essential. This is why I support a shutdown. It is better to pay Federal employees for doing nothing than to allow them to continue boring a whole into the American life.
Carrying a credit balance for the US government is probably a good thing, even though for individuals it is not. At this point, though, we have crossed the Rubicon into very bad territory. The hostage takers are those who say that we have come to far with our financial hemorrhage to turn back. That we must continue spending beyond our ability to pay back due to how far we come and that anything short of a boost to spending will tank the economy and kill Americans. This is the hostage situation!
HoreTore
10-08-2013, 12:57
I'd say "fanatical" fits.
Especially because of the "it's now or never" view of an ultimate showdown that is absolute in nature.
Life is about compromise, man. Let things fly, it'll work itself out in the end.
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 13:00
I'd say "fanatical" fits.
Especially because of the "it's now or never" view of an ultimate showdown that is absolute in nature.
Life is about compromise, man. Let things fly, it'll work itself out in the end.
I agree with you, but where is the compromise? We pay for the budget 100% as passed by the Senate or eat curb? Find me the compromise and I will probably support it as I tend to do. I do not support strongarm demagogy. More spending without cuts is not compromise and it is not reasonable, so why should it be supported by the side who stands against it?
Those who are worried about being one of the only nations who can spend light years more than we expect to be able to pay back are called fools and obstructionists. Where do we get the right to spend all of the worlds and our future children's money on the drug war, mass incarceration, golden parachutes for federal workers, etc. It is unjust. We need to discuss where our spending is and if the budget fight isn't the place to do that, I have absolutely no idea what planet I'm on.
It doesn't always work itself out in the end, to be truthful. Sometimes people go to war against one another over less serious differences. Sometimes radical organizations take over government and exterminate millions of citizens, sometimes nuclear weapons wipe out cities in Japan. Sometimes, in the end, it just ends. I just find nothing cautious or intellectually compelling in the argument that government must simply grow and grow spending more and more.
HoreTore
10-08-2013, 13:20
Obamacare is a result of a compromise. It was originally intended to be much larger, but has been scaled back as the result of a compromise between various conflicting interests.
What's happening now is that one side has pulled out of this compromise and taken a "my way or the highway" stance.
Accepting Obamacare is the first step to a compromise.
This presidency will be about a compromise leading to increased spending. Next you'll have a president where the compromise is on decreasing spending, like what Bush did(somewhat).
Learn to accept not getting your way now. Accept "defeat" on Obamacare, move on.
Montmorency
10-08-2013, 13:23
We need to discuss where our spending is
...and the only way to do it is to burn everything to the ground.
Latest Pew poll apparently shows the US public more or less evenly split with 44% blaming GOP and 42% blaming Obama and the Dems. Though apparently, that was in a forced choice kinda question. There is a huge group that thinks they are all being idiots, regardless of party.
Here's a poll without the forced choice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/07/republican-disapproval-grows-in-budget-battle-post-abc-poll-finds/). In short, everyone sucks, but the Republicans suck more than the rest. It also shows the GOP starting to splinter:
The wide unpopularity of Republicans in Congress in budget talks is in large part due to a schism within Republicans themselves. By 59 to 39 percent, conservative Republicans approve of the way their party’s members of congress have handled budget negotiations in combined interviews over two weeks. But Republicans who identify as moderate or liberal split narrowly: 44 percent approval to 49 percent disapproval.
This ideological split within the Republican party comes into sharper focus when looking at the most conservative party members. Republicans who describe themselves as “very conservative” approve of Republicans in Congress by 68 to 32 percent. Those who are just “somewhat conservative” split 51 to 45 percent in two weeks of combined poll results.
The shutdown itself is also increasingly looking like the nail in Cuccinelli's coffin. I hesitate to call the loss of the VA Governor's race a consequence of this because it was looking like the Cooch was going to lose anyway, but it's certainly going to start inflicting a political price on the GOP very shortly.
Would the GOP still object to the budget if the ACA were not in it?
What else could the Dems remove while keeping the ACA in in order to make the GOP agree with the budget?
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 13:36
Obamacare is a result of a compromise. It was originally intended to be much larger, but has been scaled back as the result of a compromise between various conflicting interests.
What's happening now is that one side has pulled out of this compromise and taken a "my way or the highway" stance.
Accepting Obamacare is the first step to a compromise.
This presidency will be about a compromise leading to increased spending. Next you'll have a president where the compromise is on decreasing spending, like what Bush did(somewhat).
Learn to accept not getting your way now. Accept "defeat" on Obamacare, move on.
Wooooaaahhh woaahhh. Wait a second. The compromise was between factions in the Democratic party. The GOP was close to united against the proposal. It was a compromise between blue and red dems, but that has nothing to do with the GOP. You make it seem like the GOP was part of dialogue other than saying "no". Not the case. The ACA was a compromise between Democrats in the blue dog coalition and Democrats at large.
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 13:38
Here's a poll without the forced choice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/07/republican-disapproval-grows-in-budget-battle-post-abc-poll-finds/). In short, everyone sucks, but the Republicans suck more than the rest. It also shows the GOP starting to splinter:
The shutdown itself is also increasingly looking like the nail in Cuccinelli's coffin. I hesitate to call the loss of the VA Governor's race a consequence of this because it was looking like the Cooch was going to lose anyway, but it's certainly going to start inflicting a political price on the GOP very shortly.
C' mon, McCaullife broke away in August. Nail in the coffin, yes, but that implies that his coffin was already there and that Ken was in it.
Spin your narratives if you'd like, but Cuccinelli scared the new Virginians and the ACA was a compromise between Democratic socialist and capitalist factions. I'm actually surprised that HoreTore thinks that the ACA was a Republican/Democrat compromise. Is anyone else surprised by that? Its fun to be slopped together on "compromises" which you opposed wholeheartedly with minimal defection
ICantSpellDawg
10-08-2013, 13:53
Would the GOP still object to the budget if the ACA were not in it?
What else could the Dems remove while keeping the ACA in in order to make the GOP agree with the budget?
Yes, remember the budget fight and threatened shutdown every year and the fact that it is merely a continuing resolution? The inclusion of ACA was the straw that broke the camels back, but it didn't cause the shutdown any more than an extra 5 pound wait could kill a body builder when you add it to the 900 lbs bar he is lifting.
But your question is the point that I hope more people understand. If you can't give up ACA funding, give where you can and get ACA funding.
C' mon, McCaullife broke away in August. Nail in the coffin, yes, but that implies that his coffin was already there and that Ken was in it.
Spin your narratives if you'd like, but Cuccinelli scared the new Virginians and the ACA was a compromise between Democratic socialist and capitalist factions.
He didn't "break away" until the shutdown brinksmanship started. Cooch was consistently holding at about 4-5 points down before that point. I agree completely that he was entirely unlikely to ever be able to close that gap, but 4-5 points was theoretically surmountable. That gap has now doubled, which is remarkable given what a poor candidate that McAuliffe is. Honestly, this entire race should be a lesson the the GOP. I'm a solid liberal (mainly social) but I've been very pleased with how McDonnell has run the state and I have a lot of respect for Bolling as well. If the GOP had run Bolling against McAuliffe, they'd have my vote in a few weeks and would likely have retained the state. To be more honest as well, I really want Christie for POTUS in 2016. The ONLY reason I might not vote for him at this point is the House GOP. I'm nervous about enabling that group further by giving them a party-aligned president, even one as independently strong-willed as Christie. My hope is that the Tea Party will have their backs broken by 2016 and I'll be able to freely vote for Christie without concerns about Congress.
Think about that. The last GOP candidate I voted for for President was Dole, but I prefer Christie over any other candidate I've even heard of, including Clinton. Yet my vote could end up going to the Dems because of the House GOP.
HopAlongBunny
10-08-2013, 14:14
I believe the Dem's already attempted some accommodation.
If I understand it correctly, the initial appropriation was for over 1 billion dollars and the defunding of Obamacare; the modified Senate proposal reduced the amount to 900 million while stripping out the provisions connected to Obamacare.
I pretty certain the "no negotiation" stance is tied to the enacted ACA; odd hill to die on.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/10/shutdown-0
ICSD, I think the single most off-putting thing is your glee at the thought of a radical re-making of American society. Pretty much destroys any notion that your goals might be "conservative." ("Revolutionary," 'radical," or "extremist" would fit better.)
To dispel a few talking points:
Number of times the Democrats in House/Senate have attempted to "compromise," i.e. hold meaningful budget talks (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/19-times-democrats-tried-to-negotiate-with-republicans-20131007): 19. Number of times Republicans have allowed such conference: 0. (So the current Repub talking point about "They won't compromise!" is entirely true if history started last week.)
The budget arrived at for the continuing resolution was based on the sequester numbers, which was regarded by both Dems and Repubs as a Dem compromise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/harry-reid-shutdown_n_4050400.html?utm_hp_ref=politics). (Until last week, which is apparently when the world was created.)
So ... deficits are falling fast (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/26/the-falling-deficit-has-been-a-disaster-for-the-gop/), personal and corporate taxes are at historic lows, and the Tea Party is angrier than ever.
Indeed, listen to your own rhetoric. You're ready to secede and burn the house down over ... what, exactly?
He didn't "break away" until the shutdown brinksmanship started. Cooch was consistently holding at about 4-5 points down before that point. I agree completely that he was entirely unlikely to ever be able to close that gap, but 4-5 points was theoretically surmountable. That gap has now doubled, which is remarkable given what a poor candidate that McAuliffe is. Honestly, this entire race should be a lesson the the GOP. I'm a solid liberal (mainly social) but I've been very pleased with how McDonnell has run the state and I have a lot of respect for Bolling as well. If the GOP had run Bolling against McAuliffe, they'd have my vote in a few weeks and would likely have retained the state.
This entire race has just been a :daisy: sandwich, from start to finish. McAuliffe is a bad choice for the Dems, but the state GOP completely lost their minds. Cuccinelli might have had a chance, even with the Jackson stench and McDonnell scandal. Putting a large percentage of the population in both NoVa and the Hampton Roads region out of work right before the election? Good call, GOP. :no:
ICSD, I think the single most off-putting thing is your glee at the thought of a radical re-making of American society. Pretty much destroys any notion that your goals might be "conservative." ("Revolutionary," 'radical," or "extremist" would fit better.)
I think "Reactionary" is the word you're looking for given that he wants the system to return to a previous state at or after its conception if I understand that correctly.
I don't think this makes sense in every discipline however. Laws become complicated over time for example because people always find smaller and smaller loopholes to exploit in many cases. Reverting that to almost zero might just open up all the loopholes again. Resetting some of the pork stuff and complicated legislation that only serves special interests which lobbied and paid for it in ways that would usually count as corruption might be a goo thing though. I do however not see how the current shutdown can achieve this. So far it only seems to hurt the wrong people, I haven't seen any lobbyists cry so far.
I do however not see how the current shutdown can achieve this.
There's been a lot of talk about a grand bargain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/03/a-grand-bargain-so-not-happening/) over the past six years, mostly from the Dems. All such attempts have been shut down, largely because the Repubs do not like the "bargain" part of grand bargain. (Fun fact: a key player in derailing all serious attempts at a grand bargain has been my very own congresscritter, Paul Ryan (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-13/ryan-opposed-debt-reduction-plan-romney-used-as-a-model).)
So: 19 attempts at a budget conciliation meeting (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/19-times-democrats-tried-to-negotiate-with-republicans-20131007) in the past year, all shut down by Repubs. Multiple (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-explains-why-gop-got-cold-feet-on-budget-negotiations-with-dems) attempts (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-03-31/politics/35207923_1_house-republican-freshmen-gop-freshmen-mike-pence) to sit down and hammer out a grand bargain, all torpedoed by the Repubs. (It gets a bit dry, but all of that talk about "Would you accept $1 in new revenue for $10 in budget cuts (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/tentoone_isnt_good_enough_for031484.php)" stuff is really, really important.)
And now, with the threat of default, suddenly the Repubs want to "compromise." Does anyone actually believe them? I mean, there's a massive credibility gap here. Looks a lot like Calvinball (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_10/an_end_to_calvinball047168.php).
Does anyone actually believe them?
Going by the video I posted above it's just a publicity stunt.
They pretend they want to bargain because they think/know it gives them better publicity.
It is a bunch of hot air, they keep saying they want to compromise and bargain to make the democrats look bad, when in reality, it is the democrats who want to compromise and bargain.
It is like the school bully punching the other child whilst saying "Stop hitting me! Stop hitting me!" then the other child getting in trouble because the teacher (uninformed voter) had their back to the truth and only went off what was being said.
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/republican-debt-ceiling-truthers-are-risking-financial-disaster.html). No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2778/must-read-bruce-bartlett-debt-limit).
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html), Bachmann is terrifying (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-obama-supporting-al-qaeda-proving-we-are-end-times).
Bachmann falsely claimed that “President Obama waived a ban on selling arms to terrorists.”
“President Obama waived a ban on arming terrorists in order to allow weapons to go to the Syrian opposition,” Bachmann said. “Your listeners, US taxpayers, are now paying to give arms to terrorists including Al Qaeda.”
Bachmann said that the Al Qaeda funding (which isn’t happening (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/understanding-glenn-becks-nonsensical-call-impeachment)) is a sign of the End Times: “This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history.”
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann continued.
HoreTore
10-08-2013, 19:40
Wooooaaahhh woaahhh. Wait a second. The compromise was between factions in the Democratic party. The GOP was close to united against the proposal. It was a compromise between blue and red dems, but that has nothing to do with the GOP. You make it seem like the GOP was part of dialogue other than saying "no". Not the case. The ACA was a compromise between Democrats in the blue dog coalition and Democrats at large.
The nature is such that almost any proposal needs to be a compromise with the opposition in order for it to pass and, more importantly, stay passed. As such, Obamacare was watered down both to satisfy the dems at large as well as the republicans.
I am of course fully aware that the republican party has generally acted like retards from the very beginning of Obamacare.
Obamacare is happening. Face up to it, be constructive.
So we're toying with the idea of defaulting on the national debt: What could possibly go wrong? (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f814b0a4-3029-11e3-9eec-00144feab7de.html#axzz2h9pWIbyI)
The exit from US Treasuries accelerated on Tuesday, as concerns mounted about financial market turmoil should a failure to raise the debt ceiling result in a delayed payment later this month.
Treasury bills maturing later this month and in early November rose above 30 basis points on Tuesday, their highest level since late 2008 when the Federal Reserve adopted a zero interest rate policy and anchored short-term interest rates.
These yields are up from about zero per cent since mid-September. In turn, the general collateral rate used for financing short-term lending between banks and investors in the repurchase, or repo, market jumped to 25bp and is up from 8bp a week ago.
“We are really seeing signs of stress showing up in the plumbing of the financial system,” said John Brady, senior vice-president at RJ O’Brien. “It’s fair to say that banks don’t want to take Treasury bills as collateral if in fact they are not going to be paid.”
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
Kadagar_AV
10-08-2013, 20:39
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
Papewaio
10-08-2013, 22:55
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
The politically correct and in this case literal term is "fiscally challenged" :smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-08-2013, 22:58
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/republican-debt-ceiling-truthers-are-risking-financial-disaster.html). No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2778/must-read-bruce-bartlett-debt-limit).
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html), Bachmann is terrifying (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-obama-supporting-al-qaeda-proving-we-are-end-times).
Bachmann falsely claimed that “President Obama waived a ban on selling arms to terrorists.”
“President Obama waived a ban on arming terrorists in order to allow weapons to go to the Syrian opposition,” Bachmann said. “Your listeners, US taxpayers, are now paying to give arms to terrorists including Al Qaeda.”
Bachmann said that the Al Qaeda funding (which isn’t happening (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/understanding-glenn-becks-nonsensical-call-impeachment)) is a sign of the End Times: “This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history.”
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann continued.
Bachman is a fringer for sure. While a person of faith, I have never been a literalist, so I unlike her I don't go around looking for end of time signs. The point is to live a good life and be ready to face your maker at ANY time. Oy vey. Still, I would ascribe this to fanaticism, not stupidity -- though on the viewing end the distinction may be irrelevant.
She is certainly playing fast and loose with the Syrian arming thing. Yes, some of the supplies will end up in the hands of AQ sympathizers. War zones are rarely well ordered with lots of accountants running about checking blocks so some of the stuff will likely get diverted. That is a far cry from what she is claiming.
Tellos Athenaios
10-08-2013, 23:01
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
The politically correct and in this case literal term is "fiscally challenged" :smoking:
You are all missing the obvious; clearly you forgot about American Exceptionalism. A republican will be with you shortly to address this severe lack of faith on your part.
EDIT: Serious questions:
How much control does the Federal Government really have in terms of who it chooses to retain? Are there actually any stipulations in employment contracts which would allow the Federal employees to accept a temporary pay cut instead of being furloughed? Why on earth are Congress critters still getting paid?
How much control does the Federal Government really have in terms of who it chooses to retain? Are there actually any stipulations in employment contracts which would allow the Federal employees to accept a temporary pay cut instead of being furloughed? Why on earth are Congress critters still getting paid?
Congress gets paid because their salaries are mandatory, not discretionary, spending. Discretionary spending is what is currently unfunded. Congressional compensation is outlined in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, POTUS and federal judges are also guaranteed pay under their respective articles. Mandatory spending also includes Medicare and Social Security.
CrossLOPER
10-08-2013, 23:47
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/open_letter.png
I don't see MJ12 on that list, but I guess it's too early for that.
HoreTore
10-09-2013, 00:08
She is certainly playing fast and loose with the Syrian arming thing. Yes, some of the supplies will end up in the hands of AQ sympathizers. War zones are rarely well ordered with lots of accountants running about checking blocks so some of the stuff will likely get diverted. That is a far cry from what she is claiming.
What's her position on Dear Reagan arming OBL, btw?
ICantSpellDawg
10-09-2013, 01:03
The nature is such that almost any proposal needs to be a compromise with the opposition in order for it to pass and, more importantly, stay passed. As such, Obamacare was watered down both to satisfy the dems at large as well as the republicans.
I am of course fully aware that the republican party has generally acted like retards from the very beginning of Obamacare.
Obamacare is happening. Face up to it, be constructive.
I am constructive regarding Obamacare. In fact, I will bet you that no other Republican on these boards has a better understanding of the healthcare system or the ACA than I do. I won't say that about most topics. I've stated that although it was pushed through 2 democratic houses and signed by the executive, the individual mandate was upheld by the judiciary as part of the enumerated power of the Federal Government to tax. Additionally, the GOP failed in its endeavor to oust the President and begin unraveling it. I recognize that these things make it the law of the land and, at this point, I recognize that it is a unique program, unlike the single payer systems throughout the world, a fact that both eases and worries me. I also recognize the causes of many of our healthcare woes and the reality that healthcare is not just another consumer product. With every sale your life and health are being held under duress. This, combined with the fact that basic human physiology is beyond most people makes the consumption of healthcare unique and important. Any who, for me this has never been about Obamacare, just like Iraq was never about WMD's. We wanted results and the premise was just hype to justify our goal because the actual goal was a much harder sell. Does my position make more sense? I want more trade offs. More government in one area must mean less in another.
ICantSpellDawg
10-09-2013, 01:05
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/republican-debt-ceiling-truthers-are-risking-financial-disaster.html). No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2778/must-read-bruce-bartlett-debt-limit).
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html), Bachmann is terrifying (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-obama-supporting-al-qaeda-proving-we-are-end-times).
Bachmann falsely claimed that “President Obama waived a ban on selling arms to terrorists.”
“President Obama waived a ban on arming terrorists in order to allow weapons to go to the Syrian opposition,” Bachmann said. “Your listeners, US taxpayers, are now paying to give arms to terrorists including Al Qaeda.”
Bachmann said that the Al Qaeda funding (which isn’t happening (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/understanding-glenn-becks-nonsensical-call-impeachment)) is a sign of the End Times: “This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history.”
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann continued.
Honestly, this is what happens when you ratchet up tension. The other side has a tendency to up the ante in response. Is this news to you?
The other side has a tendency to up the ante in response.
Insane. If you start a fight with no strategy to win, the other guy is not obligated to help you figure out how to exit with dignity. Have any of these fat old white men read Sun Tzu? Even heard of him?
This whole thing is beyond ludicrous, beyond comedy, beyond satire.
The House Republicans appear to have picked a fight with no game plan, no clear goals, just well-developed feelings of entitlement and rage.
Or as my favorite blogger put it in an epic rant (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/08/what-moderate-republicans/) today:
"There is effectively no Republican party any more. There is a radical movement to destroy the modern American state and eviscerate its institutions in favor of restoring a mythical, elysian, majority-white, nineteenth-century past."
ICantSpellDawg
10-09-2013, 02:14
Insane. If you start a fight with no strategy to win, the other guy is not obligated to help you figure out how to exit with dignity. Have any of these fat old white men read Sun Tzu? Even heard of him?
This whole thing is beyond ludicrous, beyond comedy, beyond satire.
The House Republicans appear to have picked a fight with no game plan, no clear goals, just well-developed feelings of entitlement and rage.
Or as my favorite blogger put it in an epic rant (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/08/what-moderate-republicans/) today:
"There is effectively no Republican party any more. There is a radical movement to destroy the modern American state and eviscerate its institutions in favor of restoring a mythical, elysian, majority-white, nineteenth-century past."
I don't want to restore anything. What are we going to lose, by that standard? If you believe that our perceived goal is impossible and absurd, what would successful strategy deliver that frenzied nihilistic barrages against the enemy won't? Failure is guaranteed, the least we can do is make our opponent suffer.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2013, 04:01
What's her position on Dear Reagan arming OBL, btw?
I don't know that she's made any statements regarding that, so I cannot answer. The American political right, at the time, saw the whole thing as a way to put a thumb in the Soviet Bear's eye. At the time Good Time Charlie was pushing for funding for that CIA dirty trick effort, we were still fearful of Sov Tank brigades rolling through the Fulda gap thicker than cockroaches on a tenement floor. Making the Ruskis hurt was considered a good effort.
As is all too often true with the USA, we had a much better plan for the short term and far less of a good grasp on long term unintended consequences....including the ISI funding and equipping Saudi wahabist mujahedeen along with Pashtuns.
I suspect Bachman missed that too, just as most of us did.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2013, 04:05
I'm no longer capable of discussing this in a civilized fashion. Screw the Tea Party for starting it, screw the R's for going along with it, and screw Obama and the dems for not reacting to it satisfactorily.
Seems civilized enough to me, though I read it after the edit....:yes:
"Civilized" does NOT require you to acquiesce to idiocy, merely to signal your disdain and disgust in a relatively reasoned manner.
Nasa was apparently going to announce something big at 12 pm. USA time today. But their site is shut down because of the goverment shut down. LOL. Such absurdity, such orchestrated shennanigans. Watch your three rigned circus :laugh4: FYI the websites for the CIA, FBI and IRS are working just fine, as is usa.gov, only the NASA website is down.
Also, stopping some imaginary funding doesn't immediately render a website useless. likely it's hosted on local machines or on pre-paid dedicated servers/collocation and they have internal admins running it. So no way in hell does an artifical goverment shutdown make NASA's website go "poof" just like that. So much fail...
Papewaio
10-09-2013, 11:58
Nasa was apparently going to announce something big at 12 pm. USA time today. But their site is shut down because of the goverment shut down. LOL. Such absurdity, such orchestrated shennanigans. Watch your three rigned circus :laugh4: FYI the websites for the CIA, FBI and IRS are working just fine, as is usa.gov, only the NASA website is down.
Also, stopping some imaginary funding doesn't immediately render a website useless. likely it's hosted on local machines or on pre-paid dedicated servers/collocation and they have internal admins running it. So no way in hell does an artifical goverment shutdown make NASA's website go "poof" just like that. So much fail...
Don't let facts get in the way of the story.
As of the 2-Oct 10 of the 56 gov websites went dark
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/shutdown-of-us-government-websites-appears-bafflingly-arbitrary/
It does seem arbitrary. But it isn't only NASA and they weren't the first. It is based on who is administered by critical staff and/or non-discretionary budget.
Heeeeere is an except from the email going around by the VA:
In the event of a prolonged shutdown, no decisions on appeals or motions will be issued by the Board of Veterans
Appeals, and no Board field hearings on appeals will be held
I'm relatively lucky. Old veterans or veterans who suffered severe maimings in the line of duty will be hit first.
Anyone who supports this shutdown and claims to support the troops is a damned liar. Or a politically illiterate moron. Either way.
I'll comment on the above bit, since it's not entirely clear and that's where I work. The entire Board is considered non-essential and subject to furlough (well, technically there's 1 person out of nearly 700 that is considered essential, but she can't do all our work herself). However, we remain open and are operating because we have money left over from the last fiscal year. That money was provided to us by Congress so that we could hire more attorneys to help cut into the backlog. Instead of using that money to hire new people, we are now using it as a lifeline to keep operating. That money will keep us going through the end of October, apparently, but it will run out at some point in early November. At that time all appeal processing will also stop. In addition, even though we are operating many administrative support aspects of the VA are not. This includes the mail system. As a result, even though we are completing work it is not being dispatched to Veterans or to the regional offices. That means that we have finished work simply piling up and not going anywhere. That will result in a huge workload on the administrative side of things once we get back to work and the tide of paper is unleashed. We also aren't receiving any mail from veterans or their representatives, which means that any newly submitted evidence, motions, arguments, etc. are not getting considered in conjunction with the cases we are adjudicating. That will likely result in us having to re-do an abnormally large number of cases once the mail starts flowing again and we get new documents that impact decisions that were already issued. We also cannot conduct hearings nor get any additional development done on cases. All development work on the new paperless claims system has also halted, as most of the IT staff are non-essential and currently furloughed.
In short, the progress we've made in reducing the backlog over the past year is very rapidly being reversed. If the shutdown lasts long enough, the backlog will actually grow in 2013 instead of shrink. Congress needs to get their shit together, these games have consequences.
Nasa was apparently going to announce something big at 12 pm. USA time today. But their site is shut down because of the goverment shut down. LOL. Such absurdity, such orchestrated shennanigans. Watch your three rigned circus :laugh4: FYI the websites for the CIA, FBI and IRS are working just fine, as is usa.gov, only the NASA website is down.
Also, stopping some imaginary funding doesn't immediately render a website useless. likely it's hosted on local machines or on pre-paid dedicated servers/collocation and they have internal admins running it. So no way in hell does an artifical goverment shutdown make NASA's website go "poof" just like that. So much fail...
97% of NASA has been furloughed. My wife's best friend is a PhD who works for NASA creating safety systems to stop airplanes from crashing. Her work is non-essential and she is not working or getting paid. Due to serious budget issues (NASA doesn't pay very well to begin with, people work there because they love their work), she has had to file for unemployment benefits. It's ridiculous.
You might excuse NASA for being a bit angry about this situation when you realize just how much they are getting frogged over. Anyone who's complaining about the lack of a NASA website needs to check their attitude at the door.
J-Pod, a reliably rightwing commentator:
Suicide of the Right (http://nypost.com/2013/10/08/suicide-of-the-right/)
Every piece of evidence we have so far on the government shutdown shows the public is blaming Republicans most of all for the standoff. On Monday, an ABC poll showed 71 percent fault the GOP; 61 percent fault Congressional Democrats; 51 percent fault President Obama.
Yes, Democrats look bad. Yes, Obama is probably doing himself no favors by saying he won’t negotiate when the public wants politicians in Washington to work together.
But Republicans look considerably worse. [...]
If ObamaCare had been as unpopular as conservatives believed, their plan for the shutdown — that there would be a public uprising to force Democratic senators in close races in 2014 to defund it — would’ve worked. It didn’t. Not a single senator budged.
Their tactic failed, and now what they are left with is House Speaker John Boehner basically begging the president of the United States to negotiate with him.
One thing we know for sure is that it’s not an equal fight, this fight between a man who received 65 million votes nationwide and a man who received 246,000 votes in one congressional district in Ohio.
I believe this is precisely what we are in now. I used to believe that there was a lot of wisdom in the way our government was created, with separation of powers between the branches, as well as with the distribution of powers between the states and the federal government. However, I have begun to have serious reservations over the quality of our entire system of government. As I now see it, any system of government that allows an impasse like this to occur is so fundamentally flawed as to be actively dangerous. Our current system of government is broken and no harping on about the wisdom of lots of old dead guys will change that fact. While the system worked relatively well for nearly 200 years (minus a minor civil war), I do not hold out much hope of us ever recovering from the current crisis. Now that minority parties have figured out how to block the entire working of the government, there is nothing to stop them from continuing to do that in the future, absent a total overhaul of the redistricting system, which itself I believe is impossible. Essentially, they can't put the rabbit back in the hat. As such, I am concerned that we have before us decades of political turmoil of this nature. The only alternative is going the French route and simply creating a new Republic with a new Constitution, but that's basically impossible too.
Clearly, this crisis shows the superiority of the Belgian system.
We are in a constant political crisis for a long while now but even during our famous 541 days without government, there was no notable difference for the population.
Just say the world when you want Belgians to take over your country.
For a modest fee, I am willing to start ruling the US, together with other drunkards well educated Belgians..
Good analysis (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/05/fox_news_owns_this_shutdown/):
The truth is that Republicans can pretty much say whatever they want, no matter what the bizarre logic and no matter what connection it has to what they were saying five minutes ago, and Fox News will totally accept it and blast it for hours or days.
The result? Republicans have become incredibly lazy. After all, why bother constructing a coherent argument if you don’t need one.
So why is it a problem? Well, for one thing, it means that it’s easy for Republican politicians to fall deep within an information feedback loop, not even realizing that what everyone within that loop is excited about is unpopular, or perhaps just irrelevant, to the other 80 percent or so of the nation. Or to put it another way: Benghazi!
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2013, 16:45
Heard an NPR interview with George Will (http://www.npr.org/2013/10/09/230639663/george-will-compares-previous-budget-deadlocks-to-past-conflicts)this morning.
George Will asserts that using debt limits and minority stall/stalemating are integral components of our Madisonian system of governance.
Of course, while he clearly supported the existence/use of such a tactic as manifesting Madison's concept that each branch should be struggling with the others and thereby preserve the balance, Will also said that using the tactic in connection with the ACA was a poor choice since it wouldn't work and could well backfire.
Montmorency
10-09-2013, 16:59
I feel like posting another flippant analogy:
The GOP's maneuver, unless yet holding back some devious phase, is like setting an elephant loose in a house because the foundations are being weakened by termites.
George Will asserts that using debt limits and minority stall/stalemating are integral components of our Madisonian system of governance.
*grumble*
Anyone got any more essays on sound reforms that would make the system more majoritarian?
Anyone got any more essays on sound reforms that would make the system more majoritarian?
I think these are a good start: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/
Montmorency
10-09-2013, 18:32
I'll watch them later, but at a glance they seem to be focused on the electoral process.
How about Congressional/legislative procedure, or even the structure of the houses? OK
I'll watch them later, but at a glance they seem to be focused on the electoral process.
How about Congressional/legislative procedure, or even the structure of the houses? OK
Well, the point is that if the electoral process allowed for more than two parties with more varied views and agendas, it might be easier to find a compromise and represent a larger portion of the people. For example the Tea Party might be an actual independent party then because their views differ from those of many other Republicans. ATM they nominally stay Republican because as an independent party they'd just fade away. And doing this also apparently allows them to exert more power than they should be able to.
To anyone still caught up in the delusion that the Repubs want to negotiate anything at all, I present the history of my own congresscritter, Paul Ryan (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/house-republicans-ransom-demands-falling.html):
Ryan’s entire history strongly suggests he does not want to deal. Every major attempt to create bipartisan budget negotiations has been quashed by Ryan. He voted against the Bowles-Simpson proposal, kiboshed a 2011 agreement (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/us/politics/family-faith-and-politics-describe-life-of-paul-ryan.html?hpw&pagewanted=all&_r=0) between John Boehner and President Obama, then single-handedly blew up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gang-of-six-reaction/2011/03/29/gIQAdtWKQI_blog.html) a bipartisan Senate budget deal.
Obama’s reelection has not prompted Ryan to veer from this strategy. Last spring, the president tried to spur bipartisan negotiations by compromising with himself in his budget, including cuts to Social Security and Medicare along with reducing tax deductions. Ryan waved it away (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/10/paul-ryan-statement-on-obama-budget/) and made no counteroffer. Instead, working through what Republicans called the “Jedi Council,” Ryan crafted a strategy (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/356602/print) of using the debt ceiling to extract unreciprocated concessions. He spent much of the year repeatedly (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/19-times-democrats-tried-to-negotiate-with-republicans-20131007?mrefid=mostread) turning down a budget conference on the assumption that he could get a better deal by threatening default. He confidently assured Republicans that Obama would fold and bargain for the debt ceiling. (National Review’s Jonathan Strong two weeks ago (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359818/paul-ryan-cr-fight-will-inevitably-roll-debt-ceiling-fight-jonathan-strong): “I asked Ryan if he believes President Obama’s steadfast vows that he won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling. His reaction? You’ve got to be kidding me. ‘Oh, nobody believes that.’”)
Is it possible Ryan has undergone some deep-rooted mental conversion and now wants a regular, bipartisan budget negotiation where the two parties make trade-offs? It’s possible, sure.
Tellos Athenaios
10-09-2013, 19:40
Just say the world when you want Belgians to take over your country.
For a modest fee, I am willing to start ruling the US, together with other drunkards well educated Belgians..
Are you accepting payments in natura?
To anyone still caught up in the delusion that the Repubs want to negotiate anything at all, I present the history of my own congresscritter, Paul Ryan (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/house-republicans-ransom-demands-falling.html):
...
When Obama hands the Fed a freshly minted $1T platinum coin on the 17th, will he be wearing a FU Paul Ryan t-shirt underneath his suit? And will Ryan's head explode?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2013, 23:28
When Obama hands the Fed a freshly minted $1T platinum coin on the 17th, will he be wearing a FU Paul Ryan t-shirt underneath his suit? And will Ryan's head explode?
Wouldn't that be implode instead?
Wouldn't that be implode instead?
Ryan lives in a vacuum, so I would say explode.
ICantSpellDawg
10-10-2013, 02:00
J-Pod, a reliably rightwing commentator:
Suicide of the Right (http://nypost.com/2013/10/08/suicide-of-the-right/)
Every piece of evidence we have so far on the government shutdown shows the public is blaming Republicans most of all for the standoff. On Monday, an ABC poll showed 71 percent fault the GOP; 61 percent fault Congressional Democrats; 51 percent fault President Obama.
Yes, Democrats look bad. Yes, Obama is probably doing himself no favors by saying he won’t negotiate when the public wants politicians in Washington to work together.
But Republicans look considerably worse. [...]
If ObamaCare had been as unpopular as conservatives believed, their plan for the shutdown — that there would be a public uprising to force Democratic senators in close races in 2014 to defund it — would’ve worked. It didn’t. Not a single senator budged.
Their tactic failed, and now what they are left with is House Speaker John Boehner basically begging the president of the United States to negotiate with him.
One thing we know for sure is that it’s not an equal fight, this fight between a man who received 65 million votes nationwide and a man who received 246,000 votes in one congressional district in Ohio.
Lemur is harkening the death of the GOP again. This can only be good news, as a year or 2 after his last prognostication we had the tea party run train on everyone at the midterms.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-10-2013, 02:06
Lemur is harkening the death of the GOP again. This can only be good news, as a year or 2 after his last prognostication we had the tea party run train on everyone at the midterms.
Which (I suspect) he would assert proves him to be correct as he seas the Tea Party wing as being the instrument of the GOP's destruction.
Greyblades
10-10-2013, 02:56
Obama could take the wind out of the sails by delaying the individual mandate for a year, and nobody of consequence would find fault with that.
Er... excuse my ignorance but what difference would that make beyond pushing the chicken game back a year?
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/republican-debt-ceiling-truthers-are-risking-financial-disaster.html). No, seriously.Count Moody's Investors Service among the insane then I guess....
Moody’s: U.S. Need Not Default If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised (http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2013/10/07/moodys-u-s-need-not-default-if-debt-ceiling-isnt-raised/)
We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact. The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.
Yes, Moody's has a sterling record (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8583387/SEC-investigates-role-of-ratings-agencies-Moodys-and-Standard-and-Poors-ahead-of-the-financial-crisis.html) when it comes to massive financial matters that deal with the stability of our union. By all means, let's trust them and Michelle Bachmann.
The Suicide on the Right (http://nypost.com/2013/10/08/suicide-of-the-right/) editorial came from John Podhoretz, speechwriter to the Divine Ronald Reagan, National Review writer. If he says the Repubs are being insane, you might want to listen for more than a nanosecond.
The debunking of oh-let's-breach-the-debt-limit-and-see-what-happens insanity (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2778/must-read-bruce-bartlett-debt-limit) comes from Bruce Bartlett, former congressional assistant to Ron Paul, chair of The Most Sanctified Ronald Reagan's Joint Economic Committee, senior policy analyst for George H. W. Bush.
If I were to repost things actual liberals wrote, I think the two of you would need a spell on the fainting couch. When the arguments of rock-ribbed Republicans with impeccable bona fides sound like liberal whining, maybe you've gone someplace ... interesting.
My interest in the debt ceiling is mainly academic. I think the whole idea of the debt ceiling is a bit silly. Congress approved the spending already- the notion of the debt ceiling, when it was first conceived almost 100 years ago seems like just one of the many incremental steps congress has taken to abrogate their authority.
Yes, Moody's has a sterling record when it comes to massive financial matters that deal with the stability of our union. By all means, let's trust them and Michelle Bachmann.Ah yes. Moody's and Moody's alone dropped the ball there, huh? So I guess if they downgrade the US's credit rating, you'll be similarly unconcerned.... cuz hey, they don't know what the hell they're talking about? amirite?
See, they've actually applied something known as "math" to the situation and determined that government receipts are enough to cover debt service. I'll take that over uninformed hand-wringing, no matter what team the particular talking head plays for. Certainly there would be consequences for bumping up against the debt ceiling, but default need not be one of them.
If I were to repost things actual liberals wroteWe don't need that when we have you. ~;)
Come on, don't dance around it. That "restriction of government expenditure" basically means screwing the poor by defunding the safety net. If you're taking an extreme view it is disingenuous to use such euphemisms. Are you... responding to something I actually said? :inquisitive:
Montmorency
10-10-2013, 09:13
See, they've actually applied something known as "math" to the situation and determined that government receipts are enough to cover debt service.
Ah, so it's the delusional "prioritization" scheme again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA
Ironside
10-10-2013, 09:22
Ah yes. Moody's and Moody's alone dropped the ball there, huh? So I guess if they downgrade the US's credit rating, you'll be similarly unconcerned.... cuz hey, they don't know what the hell they're talking about? amirite?
See, they've actually applied something known as "math" to the situation and determined that government receipts are enough to cover debt service. I'll take that over uninformed hand-wringing, no matter what team the particular talking head plays for. Certainly there would be consequences for bumping up against the debt ceiling, but default need not be one of them.
They're outright saying that if the US drops for example all payments for the military or social security or medicare/aid (you can chose one of these, the other won't matter in size), the debt celing won't be a problem. I'm sure suddenly stop paying pensions for 50 million people won't have any negative side effects at all... Now that's a mandatory spending, so I suppose it's the military that will get abolished, being discretionary.
I think that counts as a crash and burn option.
Certainly there would be consequences for bumping up against the debt ceiling, but default need not be one of them.
Of course that's correct, you could stop all spending for your armed forces and use the money to pay interest for example.
I'm starting to like your approach...
HopAlongBunny
10-10-2013, 13:45
Decent summary of spending/expenditure consequences in event of no deal:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/16-ways-not-raising-debt-ceiling-will-screw-americans
The patient doesn't expire immediately, but its all about which limbs to amputate first.
Montmorency
10-10-2013, 13:50
Interesting dates from a comment in one of Lemur's linked articles, in case things weren't clear in earlier comments:
October 22 - The date the CBO predicts the government will actually start missing payments.
October 24 - Treasury must roll over $24 billion in T-Bills. Technically the interest should be considered an expenditure (unlike the principal) but due to the zero coupon nature of these instruments I'm unclear on the actual govt accounting.
October 31 - Treasury must roll over $115 billion in Treasury Notes and Bonds and make an accompanying $6 billion interest payment.
November 1 - $55 billion in Medicare, Social Security, and military payments are due.
Decent summary of spending/expenditure consequences in event of no deal:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/16-ways-not-raising-debt-ceiling-will-screw-americans
The patient doesn't expire immediately, but its all about which limbs to amputate first.
I think if it hits this point, it is where we go 'So long and thanks for all the Fish' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs) to the United States. Perhaps it is time to look emigrating to Canada, Lemur .
So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear?
Your Republicans may not share our intellect
Which might explain their disrespect
For all the natural wonders that
grow around you
So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish
Your country about to be destroyed
There's no point getting all annoyed
Lie back and let the economy dissolve(around you)
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish
We don't need [liberals] when we have you.
If I'm your idea of a flaming libtard, then you appear to have led an extremely sheltered life.
you could stop all spending for your armed forces and use the money to pay interest for example.
Yeah, and that assumes that the Treasury has a system in place to pay bills by some sort of prioritizing system besides when the bills come in. Completely unclear if that is possible from an operational perspective (http://www.businessinsider.com/can-the-treasury-prioritize-payments-if-the-debt-ceiling-is-breached-2013-10).
The argument is that after the debt limit is hit the Treasury can "prioritize" payments, meaning that it would guarantee that bondholders get paid, while withholding money from, say, soldiers or Social Security.
Of course, this would obliterate the economy (Goldman estimates that this would erase 4.2% of GDP) but it wouldn't mean a debt default.
But is this actually possible?
Here's the answer: Nobody knows.
Seriously, it is remarkably difficult for anyone outside of Treasury to get any real answer to what is possible with regard to prioritization.
Cardiff Garcia has a must-read post at FT Alphaville (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/10/06/1658662/raise-your-hand-if-you-know-how-the-treasurys-payment-systems-work-anyone/) just walking through the ABCs of the Treasury payment system. Suffice to say, just the ABCs are very complicated.
Over 80 million payments go out per month, and they're handled by three different systems.
From Credit Suisse:
As we understand it, there are three main systems – the Department of Defense Disbursing Offices, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (which deals with Treasury security related payments), and the Financial Management Service (which makes all other payments).
The way that they are set up, they can either be set to “on” or “off” – i.e., a system either makes all of its payments or it doesn’t make any at all.
The extent to which the system can be rearranged to honor Treasury payments first, and then disbursing what's left over is unclear, though at a minimum it would be extremely difficult.
But even if there were some technical approach to all this, you'd still have the legality.
If they could prioritize so that old white people don't get their Social Security checks, the Tea Party might just disappear overnight. ~D
Ironside
10-10-2013, 17:46
If they could prioritize so that old white people don't get their Social Security checks, the Tea Party might just disappear overnight. ~D
An article on say the Onion with actual real numbers and then spreading it around might actually work. With current climate, I don't think a politician can state how drastic the consequences are without it being spinned as a threat or similar.
ICantSpellDawg
10-10-2013, 23:43
If I'm your idea of a flaming libtard, then you appear to have led an extremely sheltered life.
Lemur, you are exactly what the Democratic party is. Every argument you make might as well be made by the DNC. I do the same thing, but I was sensible enough to re-register as a Republican. At least I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'm some detached moderate. You are a Democrat by Long Island, NY standards.
Are you a "flaming liberal"? I don't know what that means anymore. I would say no, but the Democratic party isn't all "flaming liberals". Partisan shill? If I am, then you are.
HoreTore
10-10-2013, 23:52
Every argument you make might as well be made by the DNC.
Why, exactly?
Because he supports his arguments with research, and actually alters his stance based on the facts of a case? Because he applies a pragmatic common sense position? Because his opinions are guided by what works, instead of utopian ideals of "how it really should be"? Because he has a distaste for lies, double standards and hypocrites?
If that excludes him from the republican party, you're in deeper dog-doo-doo than you know...
ICantSpellDawg
10-10-2013, 23:59
Why, exactly?
Because he supports his arguments with research, and actually alters his stance based on the facts of a case? Because he applies a pragmatic common sense position? Because his opinions are guided by what works, instead of utopian ideals of "how it really should be"? Because he has a distaste for lies, double standards and hypocrites?
If that excludes him from the republican party, you're in deeper dog-doo-doo than you know...
It is because I can't think of a single issue that he disagrees with them on as a party. Their good ideas he boasts, their bad Ideas he pretty much glosses over. I am more critical of the Republican party and I'm registered. The idea that there is any breathing room between them is laughable. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a democrat, but it is weird to not register when you think they are right about everything.
There is lots of stuff that both parties are dead wrong about, but I am clearly on one side over the other. I doubt he could pinpoint one GOP idea which he thought wasn't ignorant and worthy of scorn. For his position to be fair he would have to expect that we are intentionally getting things wrong to have a track record of 0 for 100000000.
a completely inoffensive name
10-11-2013, 00:00
At least I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'm some detached moderate. You are a Democrat by Long Island, NY standards.
What are you guys accusing me of being? An asshole, being crazy? I'm a moderate
You have spent this thread posting 500 words essays time and time again all amounting to same premise, your personal enemy is an abstract concept of centralized government. Thus, you feel not only justified, but morally right in your stance that it takes extreme measures to make sure you get what you want in what is supposed to be Representative Democracy who just re-elected a Democratic president less than 2 years ago.
I have had you pegged since I first came here, which is why I only replied to everything you said with the word "cancer". God forgive me for starting to think that you were actually a reasonable man.
The US has always been a Union of men, not of States. When we lack the character to keep this great experiment operating, it will end.
ICantSpellDawg
10-11-2013, 00:03
You have spent this thread posting 500 words essays time and time again all amounting to same premise, your personal enemy is an abstract concept of centralized government. Thus, you feel not only justified, but morally right in your stance that it takes extreme measures to make sure you get what you want in what is supposed to be Representative Democracy who just re-elected a Democratic president less than 2 years ago.
I have had you pegged since I first came here, which is why I only replied to everything you said with the word "cancer". God forgive me for starting to think that you were actually a reasonable man.
The US has always been a Union of men, not of States. When we lack the character to keep this great experiment operating, it will end.
Your arguments have never been compelling. Lemur is worth reading. You, as I'm sure I have told you, are not worth a turd. I may also not be worth a turd, but I like to rile people up, so I enjoy reading me.
I am a moderate on many things. I am also a crazy person and enjoy getting peoples blood pumping. Maybe there is some value in that. I remember how much I hated Tribesman, but his awefullness was enjoyable on occasion. You, I'm sorry to say, are boring and never enjoyable.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.