|
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. |
On October 02 2013 18:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 18:13 Funnytoss wrote:On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.
Or how racist the Republicans are. Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them? I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail. No, I'll tell you right now that it's his policy positions. If Obama had actually made an effort to prove himself to be different from his election promises than maybe Republicans wouldn't have been so against him...
The idea of elections is to elect people BASED on the promises they make. If anything, he should be making an effort to stick to his election promises (not that he's very good at that either) - the promises got him elected, which implies that the policies he backs are the policies that people want implemented.
|
On October 02 2013 18:13 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.
Or how racist the Republicans are. Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them? I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail.
I don't think there is as much negotiation and compromise from the democrats either.Recall that Obama never got approval from congress for the strikes on Libya.Obama wasn't even going to ask congressional approval for his desired Syrian military intervention but thankfully sanity prevailed on that one.
|
At this point, my faith in the US legislative system is at an all-time low. We're having one giant game of chicken with the entire goddamn US economy, and people who are familiar with game theory recognize the possibility for unmitigated calamity. Not even including the fiscal costs of simply having a battle over the debt ceiling, which will be hundreds of billions over the next few decades. Additionally, there will be no room for compromise. As I've stated before, the political groundwork for a compromise is not available. Either the Republicans are going to cave, or they utterly wreck the US economy utterly. On any other issue, the Democrats may, but given they're targeting to focal achievement of Obama's two terms in office which he sacrificed pretty much many of his other previous promises for (immigration reform in particular, what with Obama taking Bush era policies of [ineffectual] border securitization to a new extreme to curry favor with the Republicans). He's not going to blink on this, and I'm fairly certain the Democrats are going to remain uncompromising to simply (re)set the precedent that the debt ceiling is not a political bargaining tool. Once again, game of chicken, probability for impending catastrophe. Honestly, I'd argue scrapping the local districting system all together and adopting either a Jeffersonian or proportional system of representation for the legislature is necessary, but it runs contrary to established political and party interests so meh.
I'm also rather miffed at the people searching to repeal the ACA without offering any solutions to the glaring problems of long-term healthcare sustainability due to the overwhelmingly large spiral of healthcare costs (what with the utter lack of preventative care in this country, or outright denying the looming problem without any type of healthcare reform (US has best healthcare system in the world!). We're talking about rising obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and numerous chronic illnesses that are all readily preventable with healthy lifestyle practices (particularly among children), the outright lack of preventative care in this country, glaring problems of access, massive administrative overhead (on top of the perverse incentives of current malpractice litigation). That people are willing to stick their heads in the sand about these very real and impending healthcare cost increases worry me, given the refusal to deal with these issues.
I mean, look at this.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_expectancy_vs_healthcare_spending.jpg)
This is not sustainable or efficient, and there is quite frankly a lack of discussion in this country about the costs of healthcare. Healthcare costs have been rising irregardless of Obamacare, and we're paying 18% of our GDP in 2011 on healthcare alone despite the relatively abysmal effectiveness. 2.7 trillion a year and growing.
Now is Obamacare the solution? Probably not, given all the political compromises that went into its creation. But there are numerous aspects that do work towards addressing it, and it's better than nothing at this point.
In regards to military intervention in Syria, at this point it's is off the table. If we wanted to intervene in Syria, we should've done it much, much earlier. At this point, actual intervention is moot, given the largest and most successful coalition of rebel groups consists of Sunni extremists, with ties to Al-Qaeda, while numerous moderate groups are disillusioned enough to join with them. There quite frankly isn't and won't be room for an outcome favorable to the US in the event of military intervention. And besides, the actual use of what I refer to as the "glass stick" of military power is very rarely beneficial from a self-interested security perspective. The threat of military intervention is almost always more effective than actual intervention itself in a power-politics/neo-realist paradigm.
|
On October 02 2013 18:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 18:13 Funnytoss wrote:On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.
Or how racist the Republicans are. Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them? I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail. No, I'll tell you right now that it's his policy positions. If Obama had actually made an effort to prove himself to be different from his election promises than maybe Republicans wouldn't have been so against him... Of course, this is all neglecting the fact that Obama had a near 50% approval rating from Republicans when he first took office. Rush Limbaugh never gave Obama the chance (not really), but a decent amount of Republicans did. It just turned out that Rush was right.
I don't understand, why would Obama make an effort over the ACA ? Wasn't he partially elected (twice) because of that law ? Isn't it one of his political promess ? I don't understand why a "democratically" elected president, doing what he was elected for, passing down a law before the congress (he did it already right ?) should have to make concession ?
There is something I don't quite comprehend in here.
|
On October 03 2013 01:51 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 18:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 18:13 Funnytoss wrote:On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.
Or how racist the Republicans are. Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them? I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail. No, I'll tell you right now that it's his policy positions. If Obama had actually made an effort to prove himself to be different from his election promises than maybe Republicans wouldn't have been so against him... Of course, this is all neglecting the fact that Obama had a near 50% approval rating from Republicans when he first took office. Rush Limbaugh never gave Obama the chance (not really), but a decent amount of Republicans did. It just turned out that Rush was right. I don't understand, why would Obama make an effort over the ACA ? Wasn't he partially elected (twice) because of that law ? Isn't it one of his political promess ? I don't understand why a "democratically" elected president, doing what he was elected for, passing down a law before the congress (he did it already right ?) should have to make concession ? There is something I don't quite comprehend in here.
It's rather strange. Obamacare is effectively the crowning achievement of his political career. And presently, there is no reason for there to be compromise on the ACA. It was upheld by the courts, the Democrats won a fairly convincing 2012 election, in both electoral and popular votes, and made gains in both the Senate and the House. Unlike after the 2010 midterm elections, the public mandate is with the Democrats.
That, and the Republicans are playing chicken, and must be shown that they CANNOT do so with the national economy just to win political brownies with their local constitutents irregardless of the actual costs to the nation itself.
But the political calculus for the Republicans (or specifically, the Tea Party wing; the moderate wing, or what's left of it, is pretty damn concerned about the debt ceiling) is that Americans won't remember the debt ceiling fight in 2014 for the midterm elections or won't blame them for it if it goes awry. And besides that, game theory dictates that they'll end up waiting till the last possible minute to cave (which by then may be too late to avoid a technical default, which is absurd given the US debt and deficit is perfectly sustainable at present, and counter-cyclical fiscal policies can be implemented after economic recovery).
...in my present state of political pessimism, they may be right, despite it all.
|
The polling that is being done suggests folks won't be so quick to forget, but we'll have to see.
|
On October 03 2013 02:01 farvacola wrote:
The polling that is being done suggests folks won't be so quick to forget, but we'll have to see.
They better not. Because if a default happens, we're talking 2007-8 all over again, minus the access to incredibly cheap/low interest rate loans to finance countercyclical recovery. It would literally be the most monumentally stupid thing to ever occur, and the politicians who wanted to play brinksmanship should fucking hang for it.
And again, there is no reason to default. The problem facing the US isn't debt sustainability or solvency, but liquidity. I cannot stress how utterly stupid this entire scenario is.
I would hope the US body politic wakes up after the ludicrousness of this whole affair and actually reform the legislature as it so desperately needs, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
On October 03 2013 01:51 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 18:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 18:13 Funnytoss wrote:On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.
Or how racist the Republicans are. Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them? I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail. No, I'll tell you right now that it's his policy positions. If Obama had actually made an effort to prove himself to be different from his election promises than maybe Republicans wouldn't have been so against him... Of course, this is all neglecting the fact that Obama had a near 50% approval rating from Republicans when he first took office. Rush Limbaugh never gave Obama the chance (not really), but a decent amount of Republicans did. It just turned out that Rush was right. I don't understand, why would Obama make an effort over the ACA ? Wasn't he partially elected (twice) because of that law ? Isn't it one of his political promess ? I don't understand why a "democratically" elected president, doing what he was elected for, passing down a law before the congress (he did it already right ?) should have to make concession ? There is something I don't quite comprehend in here.
The problem right now is that the government needs to approve new spending. The fiscal year ended on Sept 30 and Reps aren't agreeing to new spending authorization (a new budget for the new year basically) that includes funding for Obamacare. Normally in a budget battle you negotiate, but that's hard here since Reps want to eliminate one thing and Dems want to preserve one thing. So there isn't much room for negotiation. Additionally, there have been efforts to curtail 'earmarks' (usually wasteful spending) which have typically been used to get reluctant members of congress to agree to a bill.
|
On October 02 2013 18:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 18:13 Funnytoss wrote:On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.
Or how racist the Republicans are. Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them? I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail. No, I'll tell you right now that it's his policy positions. If Obama had actually made an effort to prove himself to be different from his election promises than maybe Republicans wouldn't have been so against him... Of course, this is all neglecting the fact that Obama had a near 50% approval rating from Republicans when he first took office. Rush Limbaugh never gave Obama the chance (not really), but a decent amount of Republicans did. It just turned out that Rush was right.
Are you kidding right now? Why should someone "prove himself to be different from his election promises"? He got elected because people liked his promises. It's his job to fullfill them. This may be the stupidest argument someone has ever brought up.
If the Republicans want to rule the country they should try to win the next presidential election. It's not the job of the democrats/the president, to change something he was specifically elected for.
|
WASHINGTON -- Less than two days after the government shut down, 17 Republicans have come forward as of Wednesday afternoon to say they're ready to pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached -- the magic number needed to do so.
If all 200 Democrats stick together and team up with those Republicans, they have the votes for passage. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would have to be willing to put that bill to a vote, which so far, he has given no indication he will do. But if he does, the votes appear to be there. The Senate would pass the bill in no time, sending it to be signed by President Barack Obama and ending the shutdown.
Read the tally here to see who those House Republicans are, and why they say they're done with trying to force through provisions on Obamacare before agreeing to keep the government running.
Source
|
On October 03 2013 04:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Less than two days after the government shut down, 17 Republicans have come forward as of Wednesday afternoon to say they're ready to pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached -- the magic number needed to do so.
If all 200 Democrats stick together and team up with those Republicans, they have the votes for passage. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would have to be willing to put that bill to a vote, which so far, he has given no indication he will do. But if he does, the votes appear to be there. The Senate would pass the bill in no time, sending it to be signed by President Barack Obama and ending the shutdown.
Read the tally here to see who those House Republicans are, and why they say they're done with trying to force through provisions on Obamacare before agreeing to keep the government running. Source
a light at the end of the tunnel? or just a concession before they screw us with the debt ceiling?
|
On October 03 2013 04:57 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 04:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Less than two days after the government shut down, 17 Republicans have come forward as of Wednesday afternoon to say they're ready to pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached -- the magic number needed to do so.
If all 200 Democrats stick together and team up with those Republicans, they have the votes for passage. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would have to be willing to put that bill to a vote, which so far, he has given no indication he will do. But if he does, the votes appear to be there. The Senate would pass the bill in no time, sending it to be signed by President Barack Obama and ending the shutdown.
Read the tally here to see who those House Republicans are, and why they say they're done with trying to force through provisions on Obamacare before agreeing to keep the government running. Source a light at the end of the tunnel? or just a concession before they screw us with the debt ceiling?
17 people who realize that the current heading of there party is suicide and are acting for the greater good?
|
On October 03 2013 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 04:57 wei2coolman wrote:On October 03 2013 04:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Less than two days after the government shut down, 17 Republicans have come forward as of Wednesday afternoon to say they're ready to pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached -- the magic number needed to do so.
If all 200 Democrats stick together and team up with those Republicans, they have the votes for passage. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would have to be willing to put that bill to a vote, which so far, he has given no indication he will do. But if he does, the votes appear to be there. The Senate would pass the bill in no time, sending it to be signed by President Barack Obama and ending the shutdown.
Read the tally here to see who those House Republicans are, and why they say they're done with trying to force through provisions on Obamacare before agreeing to keep the government running. Source a light at the end of the tunnel? or just a concession before they screw us with the debt ceiling? 17 people who realize that the current heading of there party is suicide and are acting for the greater good?
They've already ran off the cliff imo.
|
Wall Street is clear about who’s to blame for the government shutdown and a looming debt default: tea party Republicans.
What’s less clear is what Wall Street can do about it.
The reality is that deep-pocketed financial services executives and their lobbyists have little leverage against tea party lawmakers who don’t much care for financiers or big banks and don’t rely heavily on the industry for campaign cash.
“Those are the ones who are most problematic for Boehner,” one D.C.-based lobbyist who represents financial services clients said of tea party lawmakers. “I don’t think there’s any way for Wall Street to punish the 25 to 50 hard core House Republicans. It’s not like [Reps. Steve] Stockman and Tim Huelskamp are doing a lot of Goldman Sachs events. I don’t think Justin Amash cares if Bank of America gives to him or not.”
The rise of tea party lawmakers’ influence is shift from years past when the Republican party was more business friendly and could be counted on by Wall Street to give great weight to its concerns.
Source
|
I mean, any step away from big business having a large influence on politics is fine by me...
|
On October 03 2013 05:22 mordek wrote:
I mean, any step away from big business having a large influence on politics is fine by me...
Countdown to Godwin's law...
|
On October 03 2013 05:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Wall Street is clear about who’s to blame for the government shutdown and a looming debt default: tea party Republicans.
What’s less clear is what Wall Street can do about it.
The reality is that deep-pocketed financial services executives and their lobbyists have little leverage against tea party lawmakers who don’t much care for financiers or big banks and don’t rely heavily on the industry for campaign cash.
“Those are the ones who are most problematic for Boehner,” one D.C.-based lobbyist who represents financial services clients said of tea party lawmakers. “I don’t think there’s any way for Wall Street to punish the 25 to 50 hard core House Republicans. It’s not like [Reps. Steve] Stockman and Tim Huelskamp are doing a lot of Goldman Sachs events. I don’t think Justin Amash cares if Bank of America gives to him or not.”
The rise of tea party lawmakers’ influence is shift from years past when the Republican party was more business friendly and could be counted on by Wall Street to give great weight to its concerns. Source
I despise the tea party for what they do but I would call "not being in the pocket of wallstreet" a good thing.
|
good thing we have the democratic party to stand up for the bankers
|
On October 03 2013 05:22 mordek wrote:
I mean, any step away from big business having a large influence on politics is fine by me...
Business interests should absolutely be addressed. Large influence is a stretch due to the many competing interests and lobbies that vie against one another (from labor unions, professional associations, cultural communities, etc.), but there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with it. Governments (and specifically bureaucracies) need to be responsive to business interests as a part of "embedded autonomy".
Is the influence and presence of, say, the Drug Policy Alliance or AFL-CIO more valid a group of poeple then, say, Google or Goldman Sachs? Unless you're advocating for a complete divorce of professional and lobbying organizations from influencing policy (which in my opinion would be a poor plan given the reliance of lawmakers on these groups to help formulate coherent policies out of broad brushstrokes), why the discrimination of choice?
|
On October 03 2013 05:39 Lord Tolkien wrote:
which in my opinion would be a poor plan given the reliance of lawmakers on these groups to help formulate coherent policies out of broad brushstrokes
you know what's a poor plan? allowing the inmates to run the asylum
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
