Org Mobile Site
Thread: US Federal Government Shutdown
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.
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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
We need to discuss where our spending is
...and the only way to do it is to burn everything to the ground.We need to discuss where our spending is
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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. In short, everyone sucks, but the Republicans suck more than the rest. It also shows the GOP starting to splinter: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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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?
What else could the Dems remove while keeping the ACA in in order to make the GOP agree with the budget?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.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.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Here's a poll without the forced choice. 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.Here's a poll without the forced choice. 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.
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
Originally Posted by Husar:
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.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?
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.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
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.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.
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.
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/democ.../10/shutdown-0
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/democ.../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: 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. (Until last week, which is apparently when the world was created.)
So ... deficits are falling fast, 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?
To dispel a few talking points:
Number of times the Democrats in House/Senate have attempted to "compromise," i.e. hold meaningful budget talks: 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. (Until last week, which is apparently when the world was created.)
So ... deficits are falling fast, 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?
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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 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.
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. 
Originally Posted by Lemur:
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.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 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.
Originally Posted by Husar:
I do however not see how the current shutdown can achieve this.
There's been a lot of talk about a grand bargain 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.)I do however not see how the current shutdown can achieve this.
So: 19 attempts at a budget conciliation meeting in the past year, all shut down by Repubs. Multiple attempts 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" 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.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Does anyone actually believe them?
Going by the video I posted above it's just a publicity stunt.Does anyone actually believe them?
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.
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. No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist, Bachmann is terrifying.Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be
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) 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.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
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.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.
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?
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
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.”
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.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
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".Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
The politically correct and in this case literal term is "fiscally challenged" I think the word you are looking for is "special".
Originally Posted by Lemur:
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter. No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist, Bachmann is terrifying.
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.This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter. No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist, Bachmann is terrifying.
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) 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
The politically correct and in this case literal term is "fiscally challenged"
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.The politically correct and in this case literal term is "fiscally challenged"
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?
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
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.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?
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I don't see MJ12 on that list, but I guess it's too early for that.Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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?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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter. No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist, Bachmann is terrifying.
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?This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter. No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist, Bachmann is terrifying.
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) 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.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
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?The other side has a tendency to up the ante in response.
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 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."
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO