EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 477
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- If Americans aren't sure whether Congress can head off a shutdown of the government in the next three days, they're not alone. The Republican-led House of Representatives didn't know whether it was possible either, as of Friday evening. The Senate has passed a bill that keeps federal employees on the job until Nov. 15 -- but strips the House GOP's attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act. It's now the lower chamber's turn to deal with the legislation. That has presented House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) with one of the toughest quandaries of his reign since the showdown over the country's debt in 2011. A large portion of his conference remains committed to dismantling President Barack Obama's signature health care law, but on Friday members were having a hard time agreeing on exactly which pill they could use to poison the law that would also stand a chance of getting swallowed by the Senate. Part of the problem is that many of the tea party-aligned members see a government shutdown as a better choice than letting Obamacare take root. "I don't want to shut the government down, but I'd prefer to stop this law," said Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). "If there is a price to be paid for this, we will recover from a government shutdown, whether it's a day, a week or two weeks ... something will get resolved, we'll recover from that as a country," said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). "It's a temporary inconvenience for a lot of people. But if Obamacare is ever implemented, we will never recover from that as a nation. We can never be a free people again." On the other hand, many GOP lawmakers see throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of government as political suicide. "A lot of Americans are going to get hurt in a situation like that. You put people out of work. You inconvenience millions -- tens of millions -- of other Americans. You raise doubt about your ability to function," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), deputy whip of the House. "I don't think that a government shutdown is ever the right answer. Politically, I think anybody who thinks it's not high-risk is just not playing with a full deck," Cole added. "It's extraordinarily high-risk, and for not much gain." Source | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
This should go over well. :D | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22352 Posts
Are these people this far removed from reality that they actually believe this and not just spouting what they know is BS to get re-elected. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 29 2013 02:22 farvacola wrote: Once it became "Obamacare", there was no convincing the demographic that votes folks like Ted Cruz in. Let's just say that "nuance" never resisted any British tea taxes I would argue that the label of "Obamacare" actually ended up being favorable for the democratic party as a whole. Republicans' response to Obamacare has been very bitter and disruptive, and as a result, has earned them the image that they are currently trying to shake. Kinda got trolled lol | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- Thwarted by the U.S. Senate's insistence on funding the government without attaching any Obamacare riders, the House of Representatives Saturday chose a new confrontational path, dramatically raising the odds of a government shutdown in less than three days. Egged on by the tea party and like-minded leaders such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), the House earlier this month decided to link the funding of the government to ending President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. The Senate stripped those provisions, leaving the House to meet in an unusual Saturday session. The new plan would include a one-year delay of Obamacare. The bill also would call for a full repeal of the law’s tax on medical devices, which many members on both sides of the aisle support, but which helps pay for the cost of health-care reform. Funding for military personnel and funding for the government itself until Dec. 15, 2013, also would be included. "We are 100 percent united in this," said Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.). "It's up to the Senate if they want to shut us down." The new House CR offer reflects the continued dominance of the conservative wing over leadership. After it became clear that the Senate would not approve the original House bill that fully delayed Obamacare, top GOP leadership aides told The Huffington Post that they were likely done trying to chip away at the president’s signature law, at least as part of a bill to fund the government. But two days later, they did just that under pressure from tea party members in their own chamber and the Senate. Cruz in particular was credited with making the second CR offer more aggressive. "He's played a huge role,” Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) to HuffPost. “He's been the rallying force." Source | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On September 29 2013 05:40 SnipedSoul wrote: I really hope the democrats don't give in. If they do we'll be going through this exact same mess in November. Permanent crisis is going to be the new normal lol | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22352 Posts
You cant hold the entire country hostage over a bill you dont like when it was democratically passed and you fail at repealing it through the proper democratic process. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
LOL the founders ASSUMED equality??? Are you serious? You do know that slaves counting as 3/5 of a vote is in the Constitution, right? More folk history. The judicial precedent for equality is under the fifth amendment under due process, but that's only under a living constitution interpretation. Getting back to Obamacare, why the fuck should anyone care about how the White House argued it? I'm serious. Is the White House a supreme justice now? They said it wasn't a tax and Roberts disagreed with them. And I have no idea where you assert that you can't tax someone for being a citizen. Pulled out of your ass. Especially as not having healthcare creates a free rider problem where everyone else is paying for your healthcare: something you expressly forbade in a previous sentence. [Edit: so if anything its a tax on citizens who force others to pay for their healthcare.] No, once again, the only difference between your interpretation and mine is that you're arrogant and zealous enough to think that yours is the One True Interpretation. The whole point is that we can determine what they are as society, not worship some Americo-Religious dogma Did you think the ruling on the Voting Rights Act was "activism"? They mangled a law that was passed overwhelming in both houses and signed with large popular support, exactly as it previously was passed. The Constitution wasn't perfect. (nor were the Civil Rights Acts, but it was Constitutional (see section 5 of amendment 14)). The founders knew this, of course. That's why article 5 exists. But their view was that all free citizens under the law were to be treated equally. They counted slaves as three-fifths for representation purposes...without slavery they would have had NO Constitution whatsoever, so they made a compromise (the whole Constitution is a compromise, but everyone had the same general goals in mind). I can't address what you said about the fifth amendment only working under the living constitution because you still haven't really defined the term. But, at any rate, it's false. It's well documented that the Founders, generally speaking, wanted every citizen to be equal under the law. That's not new. Obamacare is an affront not only to the idea of enumerated powers but also to the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause (the poor, poor abused Commerce Clause). Ok, let me explain this once again: Our Constitution is a document of (using Obama's words) "negative liberties." What the government CANNOT do to you. Its powers are ENUMERATED. PERIOD. Go ahead and challenge this. You can't.. This doctrine means that the government CANNOT do what it is not given the power to do. So unless you can show me that the tax amendment was in ANY way construed to mean taxes for merely being a citizen, then you are wrong. You say I have no facts, but I shouldn't have to go back to middle school to show you the idea of enumerated powers and the concept of limited government. This is what the founders meant and intended. YOU would rewrite it simply because it's old and it gets in your way. There is such a hilarious amount of documentation for this. So here again I ask: what IS your view of the Constitution? What rationale do you use when deciding if something is constitutional or not? So far you just say: "it's living and breathing, times change, and I want this to mean something else now." I hope you haven't been in this thread expressing anger of the NSA, because on your view what they are doing is perfectly ok. They could force you to wear pink flip-flops every day because they decide it would be better for your health, and that would be ok. When does the Constitution matter, and when doesn't it? You are right though: I am arguing that my interpretation is the right one. And so far, I have logically defended it, on a basis or original intent (that seems reasonable). You have offered no real explanation of your view, instead you attack me as close minded. I notice you REFUSE to answer my more philosophically oriented questions, most likely because it would show the utter inanity and lack of a coherent thesis. I told you I'm not going to go more into specific rights because I don't even know exactly where you are coming from. Your defense of your own view is non-existent and consists almost entirely of attacking mine. So, before you reply again, answer the following: How is the Constitution to be interpreted? What makes something unconstitutional when the Constitution is "living and breathing?" Why not follow the law and try to pass amendments, instead of relying on 5 out of 9 FALLIBLE human beings? You think the issue is "debatable" but of course, while we are debating it, the government declares discussion over and simply acts. Are there any decisions that you can name that were decided "wrong" (meaning that they are inconsistent with what the Founders would have wanted) but that you believe had a good outcome from a policy perspective? Or do you just happen to think that the Founders would have agreed with all of your policy preferences? If you haven't noticed, I am making more broad philosophical arguments, using some examples. I am not going to go down the list of every little policy decision, even the founders didn't all agree on policy. So of course I don't think they would all agree with me on each and every issue. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On September 29 2013 06:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The House GOP is now comparing defunding Obamacare to fighting the 9/11 hijackers... . Well when the administration compares the GOP to economic terrorists (or terrorists in general) I guess it means they get the ok to play dirty with rhetoric. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22352 Posts
[B]On September 29 2013 06:29 Introvert wrote: So, before you reply again, answer the following: How is the Constitution to be interpreted? What makes something unconstitutional when the Constitution is "living and breathing?" Why not follow the law and try to pass amendments, instead of relying on 5 out of 9 FALLIBLE human beings? You mean fallible, unlike the founding fathers who were infallible and wrote the perfect document that we cannot interpret or change? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On September 29 2013 06:36 Gorsameth wrote: You mean fallible, unlike the founding fathers who were infallible and wrote the perfect document that we cannot interpret or change? If you read the whole thing (hell, just the first part of it) you would notice in my first paragraph that I said they were imperfect, as is the Constitution, and that is why we have article 5. If you don't know your article 5, well, it's the article describing how to amend the Constitution. I'm just arguing that originalism is the most logical way to see the law of the land, instead of rewriting it on a whim. This applies to the early 20th Century amendments as well. How were they worded and what did they mean? Not "what do I want it to mean?" | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On September 29 2013 06:30 Introvert wrote: Well when the administration compares the GOP to economic terrorists (or terrorists in general) I guess it means they get the ok to play dirty with rhetoric. I think they're both great comparisons. The GOP is basically saying if we don't get what we want, even with only a majority party in one house, we're going to force a shutdown. Seems pretty similar to what terrorists do. On the other side, the GOP can fight the ACA but they're going to go down in flames for it. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
The Republican leadership has lost control and the Tea Partiers are now running the show in the House. And their burning hate for Obamacare means that there's no chance of compromise. This is extortion, and I don't see how a resolution is possible despite default being unimaginably reckless. Obamacare is the law. Obamacare is a good thing. And Obama should not give an inch despite this blackmail attempt to hold the economy hostage. If the debt ceiling is not raised (and it's hard too see how it will be now, despite the fact that they've always pulled through at the last minute), Obama must either declare the debt limit unconstitutional under the 14th amendment or mint the trillion dollar platinum coin. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
House Republicans have reportedly added language to a new government spending bill that limits contraceptive care for employers and insurers who find the care objectionable based on certain grounds. The provision was added to a new continuing resolution proposal introduced earlier on Saturday. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) and a House leadership aide confirmed the added language to CNN. The provision allows insurers and employers to opt out of providing preventative care for when if they have moral or religious objections to that contraceptive care. The continuing resolution, which House leadership unveiled earlier on Saturday, includes a one-year delay of Obamacare and a Medical device tax repeal. Source | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
So, basically, we have a lame duck session of the House 9 months into their first year. Awesome. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 29 2013 11:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Now that a government shutdown appears to be inevitable, Reid summarized it well: "the American people will not be extorted by Tea Party anarchists". Some pundits believe that a government shutdown is a good thing because it does relatively little harm compared to the upcoming debt ceiling showdown, and would make Republicans more amenable to raise the debt ceiling. But that's clearly not going to happen. The Republican leadership has lost control and the Tea Partiers are now running the show in the House. And their burning hate for Obamacare means that there's no chance of compromise. This is extortion, and I don't see how a resolution is possible despite default being unimaginably reckless. Obamacare is the law. Obamacare is a good thing. And Obama should not give an inch despite this blackmail attempt to hold the economy hostage. If the debt ceiling is not raised (and it's hard too see how it will be now, despite the fact that they've always pulled through at the last minute), Obama must either declare the debt limit unconstitutional under the 14th amendment or mint the trillion dollar platinum coin. Tea party republicans successfully pushing for outright rejection of Obamacare? Maybe they don't have short memories, remembering how it was drafted behind closed doors and passed both House and Senate. I mean, if Democrats couldn't get Olympia Snowe to vote for it, that's pretty bad. As far as laws are concerned, some haven't forgotten the border fence which was law ... but the funding and action was stopped. So much for something being laws (when the political establishment is against it). Let's see all these new Democrats voted in because the American people support funding for laws they don't like. I want 2014 to be a referendum on the Tea Part support of defund measures. Spending measures must originate in the House and that's by design. Spending on a ~1.1 trillion dollar bill isn't trivial enough to pass notice. Refuse to fund it. The debt limit fight is the time to push for a reduction in the increase in spending. Debt to GDP is 73%, highest since world war two. If your interest is in halting the growth of government, make these bills count for cutting spending. If the other side won't compromise and basically dares you shut down the government, don't be the one playing chicken. It's a substantial re-framing from the way it's portrayed in the media. Democrats and big-gov Republicans keep on spending outstripping tax revenue (indeed it's impossible to support the spending with tax increases on the rich) and this only becomes an issue at elections and at debt limit negotiations. The debt WILL be serviced (this is not a default) under the law on essential services, and social security and medicare checks will still go out. Negotiate from a position of strength. Otherwise, why should we elect Republicans to the House anyways? | ||
| ||
