|
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 08 2013 15:30 Danglars wrote:Is that really in keeping with the rules regarding this thread? Post some political artist's fantastical smear and have that encompass the entirety of your post? At least have the good sense to make a point and spoiler your humorous contribution! Of course, the Democrats do have a long history of blaming Fox News and caricaturing Republican politicians (that do not think their way) to fire up their base and preserve their power. I don't know how much you personally agree with those tactics, but maybe I'm learning a little bit now. Keep cycling over and over that the Republicans are to blame and the Democrats are being oh-so-obliging. Your choir will certainly echo it.
I fail to see how using the medium of cartoons to express a point of view is any different from using the medium of words?
|
On October 08 2013 15:30 Danglars wrote:Is that really in keeping with the rules regarding this thread? Post some political artist's fantastical smear and have that encompass the entirety of your post? At least have the good sense to make a point and spoiler your humorous contribution! Of course, the Democrats do have a long history of blaming Fox News and caricaturing Republican politicians (that do not think their way) to fire up their base and preserve their power. I don't know how much you personally agree with those tactics, but maybe I'm learning a little bit now. Keep cycling over and over that the Republicans are to blame and the Democrats are being oh-so-obliging. Your choir will certainly echo it.
It's not like you need to be a democrat to come to similar conclusions...
|
On October 08 2013 15:30 Danglars wrote:Is that really in keeping with the rules regarding this thread? Post some political artist's fantastical smear and have that encompass the entirety of your post? At least have the good sense to make a point and spoiler your humorous contribution! Of course, the Democrats do have a long history of blaming Fox News and caricaturing Republican politicians (that do not think their way) to fire up their base and preserve their power. I don't know how much you personally agree with those tactics, but maybe I'm learning a little bit now. Keep cycling over and over that the Republicans are to blame and the Democrats are being oh-so-obliging. Your choir will certainly echo it.
Well regarding Fox News, the first time (and last time) i stumbled upon it, i saw a show called 'freedom watch' where a weird judge tried to explain to me why the government is going to come and steal my jacket one day.
And i don't really get this 'come on you have to be fair, every discussion has two sides, the democrats must be blamed, too!'
ACA basically went through every institution America has to offer, the Republicans tried to repeal it about a few dozen times, and it didn't work. A vote on the national budget which is required to keep the government running is not the right thing to utilize to get what you want at every cost.
That's not 'democratic' , it's simply abuse of the political system and blackmail. Also every time i go to the comment section of one of the bigger news sites probably eight out of ten posts go like :' Hey, i'm a supporter of the GOP, but this is really shameful!'
I don't really get the impression that what the Republicans are doing is supported 100% by their base.
|
Honestly, we just need to abolish the two party system so that government officials can stop with their idiocy across the board and just have idiocy on specific issues instead.
|
On October 09 2013 00:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 15:30 Danglars wrote:On October 08 2013 15:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:![[image loading]](http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/screen_shot_2013-10-07_at_11.38.36_am.png) Is that really in keeping with the rules regarding this thread? Post some political artist's fantastical smear and have that encompass the entirety of your post? At least have the good sense to make a point and spoiler your humorous contribution! Of course, the Democrats do have a long history of blaming Fox News and caricaturing Republican politicians (that do not think their way) to fire up their base and preserve their power. I don't know how much you personally agree with those tactics, but maybe I'm learning a little bit now. Keep cycling over and over that the Republicans are to blame and the Democrats are being oh-so-obliging. Your choir will certainly echo it. Well regarding Fox News, the first time (and last time) i stumbled upon it, i saw a show called 'freedom watch' where a weird judge tried to explain to me why the government is going to come and steal my jacket one day. And i don't really get this 'come on you have to be fair, every discussion has two sides, the democrats must be blamed, too!' ACA basically went through every institution America has to offer, the Republicans tried to repeal it about a few dozen times, and it didn't work. A vote on the national budget which is required to keep the government running is not the right thing to utilize to get what you want at every cost. That's not 'democratic' , it's simply abuse of the political system and blackmail. Also every time i go to the comment section of one of the bigger news sites probably eight out of ten posts go like :' Hey, i'm a supporter of the GOP, but this is really shameful!' I don't really get the impression that what the Republicans are doing is supported 100% by their base.
While it's not normal for a party to take a hard line stance during a budget negotiation, it is certainly the appropriate and democratic time to address spending disputes.
|
No?
Letting your goverment go into shutdown (let alone not raising the debt limit) is about the least appropriate time to adress spending disputes.
Priorities:
1: Run your country.
2: Talk money.
|
On October 09 2013 01:33 Velr wrote:
No?
Letting your goverment go into shutdown (let alone not raising the debt limit) is about the least appropriate time to adress spending disputes.
Priorities:
1: Run your country.
2: Talk money.
The government is in shutdown because of the spending dispute. To say that you can't dispute spending during a shutdown is to say that you can't dispute spending beyond the end of the fiscal year.
|
No?
1: This shutdown is happening because Republicans are basically crying about their lost battle against ACA and just can't get over it. The budget issue has no effect on ACA's funding so... What is this about again? Oh yeah, republicans rebelling against your own democratic process because they lost.
2: A country lead by sane individuals won't go into shutdown, despite budget disagreements, despite laws one party can't swallow (but has to, at least when you believe in democracy). You might ask, what would another country do? Simple: Early reelections or have a popular vote about the issue, meanwhile the goverment would just keep the country running until the results are clear.
|
this "government shutdown" has really bothered me. We finally have a group of politicians that don't care about money and really care about the reasons why they were elected. But they're inconveniencing the system that we've grown that enjoys money in politics and the continued mediocrity that it inspires. the left is utterly against any type of election reform and now the right has everything to gain by the unraveling of the system. going to be a really interesting time to live in the next few years.
Obamacare just pisses me off as it should piss everyone off. Its the laziest and most destructive method to get to a single payer system. but the way that the tea party is trying to fight it is even worse.
|
On October 09 2013 02:44 Velr wrote:
No?
1: This shutdown is happening because Republicans are basically crying because they lost every battle against ACA and just can't get over it.
2: A country lead by sane individuals won't go into shutdown, despite budget disagreements, despite laws one party can't swallow (but has to, at least when you believe in democracy).. You don't shutdown your goverment, the main job is to run the fucking goverment, running it whiteout increasing the debt is a secondary issue.
Just about any other country would just have early reelections or a popular vote about the issue when something like this shows up on the horizon, which is way smarter than destroying itself.
1: The shutdown is happening because passing a law is not the same as funding a law. A party briefly in power cannot mandate spending for the next 1,000 years simply by maintaining a divided government. If you want to dictate spending, you have to control the entire Congress.
2: Yes other countries would handle it differently. I don't know why dissolving the government and electing a new one is automatically superior to a shutdown. Both are messy. Bear in mind that despite the shutdown, much of the federal government is still running, and state and local governments are not shutdown.
|
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic?
|
On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic?
Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes.
Secondly, just because the ACA is the law of the land doesn't mean that it's spending is guaranteed. Reps do not want to fund the ACA, which is within their rights (mandatory spending can be changed as a normal part of the budget process), and so have passed a spending appropriation that funds everything but the ACA (which the Senate has rejected, as is their right).
There are two key things with that that are abnormal. It is abnormal for a large amount of unpopular mandatory spending to exist in the first place. It is also abnormal for a large amount of mandatory spending to be disputed.
|
On October 09 2013 03:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:44 Velr wrote:
No?
1: This shutdown is happening because Republicans are basically crying because they lost every battle against ACA and just can't get over it.
2: A country lead by sane individuals won't go into shutdown, despite budget disagreements, despite laws one party can't swallow (but has to, at least when you believe in democracy).. You don't shutdown your goverment, the main job is to run the fucking goverment, running it whiteout increasing the debt is a secondary issue.
Just about any other country would just have early reelections or a popular vote about the issue when something like this shows up on the horizon, which is way smarter than destroying itself. 1: The shutdown is happening because passing a law is not the same as funding a law. A party briefly in power cannot mandate spending for the next 1,000 years simply by maintaining a divided government. If you want to dictate spending, you have to control the entire Congress. 2: Yes other countries would handle it differently. I don't know why dissolving the government and electing a new one is automatically superior to a shutdown. Both are messy. Bear in mind that despite the shutdown, much of the federal government is still running, and state and local governments are not shutdown.
It goes without saying that the government as a whole must protect laws that have already been passed, unless they are repealed. It creates political and juridical uncertainty when, if a government is so devided that it can neither pass new laws or repeal old laws, every politically disputed law must be (or is capable of being) defunded so that the government isn't shut down. It's essentially demanding every political party to have to maintain a unified congress in order to have their laws funded.
Edit: I understand the value of budget negotiations as a means of the legislative reign in the executive branch when it oversteps or for overarching budget discussions (like it was in during Clinton's presidency as I understand). But I find it pretty undemocratic to use it to undo specific laws when there is already a process for that (repealing them).
|
On October 09 2013 03:36 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 02:44 Velr wrote:
No?
1: This shutdown is happening because Republicans are basically crying because they lost every battle against ACA and just can't get over it.
2: A country lead by sane individuals won't go into shutdown, despite budget disagreements, despite laws one party can't swallow (but has to, at least when you believe in democracy).. You don't shutdown your goverment, the main job is to run the fucking goverment, running it whiteout increasing the debt is a secondary issue.
Just about any other country would just have early reelections or a popular vote about the issue when something like this shows up on the horizon, which is way smarter than destroying itself. 1: The shutdown is happening because passing a law is not the same as funding a law. A party briefly in power cannot mandate spending for the next 1,000 years simply by maintaining a divided government. If you want to dictate spending, you have to control the entire Congress. 2: Yes other countries would handle it differently. I don't know why dissolving the government and electing a new one is automatically superior to a shutdown. Both are messy. Bear in mind that despite the shutdown, much of the federal government is still running, and state and local governments are not shutdown. It goes without saying that the government as a whole must protect laws that have already been passed, unless they are repealed. It creates political and juridical uncertainty when, if a government is so devided that it can neither pass new laws or repeal old laws, every politically disputed law must be (or is capable of being) defunded so that the government isn't shut down. It's essentially demanding every political party to have to maintain a unified congress in order to have their laws funded.
Virtually all laws either don't require funding, are popular enough to avoid funding disputes, or are small enough to easily be compromised over.
|
On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. .
So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage?
Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way.
|
On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way.
Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it.
|
On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it.
It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it.
|
There wasn't a vote on the whole budget including ACA afaik?
So all the Reps actually can do is not allowing a vote to happen and with that blackmailing the democrats (which by agreeing would commit political suicide)
WHATAGLORIOUSPLAN!
|
On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it.
There isn't enough votes to pass a clean CR if it means that the party is against it. IE the ones that are willing to vote for a clearn CR are doing so because they want to distance themselves from the libertarians that are causeing this shutdown but won't actually break party unity to side with the democrats. Boehner not calling for said votes keeps them in that backup QB situation where they can talk all they want and not have to really worry about stepping up and ruining peoples ideas of you.
On October 09 2013 03:53 Velr wrote:
There wasn't a vote on the whole budget including ACA afaik?
So all the Reps actually can do is not allowing a vote to happen and with that blackmailing the democrats.
WHATAGLORIOUSPLAN!
If you want to go back in time the passing of the ACA wasn't exactly done on the level so to speak. the democrats had to pass what little they could (after obama backed out of it) though a loophole to get around them loseing their super-majority in the senate. Not saying its not the law of the land but its a bit disingenuous to say that there was a real or full vote on the ACA.
|
On October 09 2013 03:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. There isn't enough votes to pass a clean CR if it means that the party is against it. IE the ones that are willing to vote for a clearn CR are doing so because they want to distance themselves from the libertarians that are causeing this shutdown but won't actually break party unity to side with the democrats. Boehner not calling for said votes keeps them in that backup QB situation where they can talk all they want and not have to really worry about stepping up and ruining peoples ideas of you.
~ 20 Republican members of the House have publicly stated that they would vote for a clean CR if they are given the opportunity to do so. That is more than enough to pass the CR, assuming no Democrats break ranks. It is possible that these Republicans would go back on their word by voting against a clean CR, but I can't see that going over well with their constituents who are already pretty pissed off.
Edit: Also please don't call the Tea Party "Libertarians" - they are very socially conservative, which inconsistent with the Libertarian platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
