....So that's why you think it's a good idea to shut down museums while letting the NSA and others operate as normal?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Printable View
....So that's why you think it's a good idea to shut down museums while letting the NSA and others operate as normal?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I would not go there.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
My Congressman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4037524.html
I hate everythingQuote:
"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.
American Conservative on the GOP misinformation problem, part 1
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
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:
If Hillary Clinton defeats Ted Cruz for the presidency in 2016, the lesson “movement” conservatives will draw is that Cruz wasn’t conservative enough.
I just read "non-essential" and figured national security was exempted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I have no idea on the specifics, really(what do I care what you loonies are up to?).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...nment-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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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.
That depends on what you did read. There's a lot of difference in work effort between different programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
"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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
Or, equally, it is the House's fault for refusing to act on the revised Bill which has been handed back by the Senate...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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....
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
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?
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...-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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
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."
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
I always thought they appealed to an older demographic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hzhI4i0Kgs
So what do we make of this then?
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
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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?
Understatement of the century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But US won't default.
Spot-on:
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