|
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 11 2013 16:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 15:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An estimated 7 million people have been shut out at 12 of the busiest and biggest U.S. national parks, costing parks and nearby communities about $76 million in lost visitor spending for each day the partial government shutdown drags on.
That's according to a report just out from the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, which derived its estimates from actual National Park Service visitation numbers from last October and an independent analysis of park economic impacts conducted by the nonpartisan group Headwaters Economics.
The report also concludes that more than 40,000 non-Park Service jobs are at risk in and outside these 12 national parks alone.
"These figures are mind-boggling, and they only begin to capture the full economic shock of locking up the crown jewels of America," says Maureen Finnerty, the Coalition's chair and a former superintendent at Everglades and Olympic National Parks. Source In other news, Obama tries to make the government shut down hurt as many Republicans as possible. Now Republicans, Democrats. It is a matter of historical record that people were allowed to visit the national parks in previous government shutdowns, with park service kiosks closed. What is mind-boggling is the extent to which Obama and allies are trying to make the shutdown felt, considering how minor in impact it is.
In my historical records (mainly the internet), national parks were closed in 1995 as well, next to the smithonian museums. Iirc, before 1995, a shutdown wasn't what a shutdown is now, so it's irrelevant.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/20/224530832/not-so-fond-memories-from-the-last-government-shutdowns
|
On October 11 2013 17:58 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 16:52 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2013 15:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An estimated 7 million people have been shut out at 12 of the busiest and biggest U.S. national parks, costing parks and nearby communities about $76 million in lost visitor spending for each day the partial government shutdown drags on.
That's according to a report just out from the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, which derived its estimates from actual National Park Service visitation numbers from last October and an independent analysis of park economic impacts conducted by the nonpartisan group Headwaters Economics.
The report also concludes that more than 40,000 non-Park Service jobs are at risk in and outside these 12 national parks alone.
"These figures are mind-boggling, and they only begin to capture the full economic shock of locking up the crown jewels of America," says Maureen Finnerty, the Coalition's chair and a former superintendent at Everglades and Olympic National Parks. Source In other news, Obama tries to make the government shut down hurt as many Republicans as possible. Now Republicans, Democrats. It is a matter of historical record that people were allowed to visit the national parks in previous government shutdowns, with park service kiosks closed. What is mind-boggling is the extent to which Obama and allies are trying to make the shutdown felt, considering how minor in impact it is. In my historical records (mainly the internet), national parks were closed in 1995 as well, next to the smithonian museums. Iirc, before 1995, a shutdown wasn't what a shutdown is now, so it's irrelevant. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/20/224530832/not-so-fond-memories-from-the-last-government-shutdowns
The idea is that the parks were closed for visitor booths and information centers, but anybody with two legs could walk to visit them. They weren't prepared to pay guys to make sure people suffered. Nowadays, paying the park police ~50k$ a year employees receive their pay to make sure it's felt.
Lincoln Monument, Government Shutdown 1995 (similar in your article too)
![[image loading]](http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lincolnmemorialshutdown1995.jpg)
People visiting, no barricades in sight.
|
Blockading the Parks IS silly but thats the point. The shutdown isn´t supposed to save money or something like that but to pressure Congress into passing a Budget. Obama isn´t caving to the demands because the shutdown isn´t a bargaining chip. If the Reps could they would fund everything except ACA - and thats why Obama only accepts a complete Budget or none.
Also, even IF there were negotioations about modifiying the shutdown the Parks really aren´t a priority.
|
On October 11 2013 03:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 11 2013 02:27 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. I don't know if you're doing it purpose, but did you even read the post you were replying to? I specifically underlined the distinction between being willing to negotiate or not and putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. Do you not understand this distinction or something? Again, if you want to blame both Republicans and Democrats for not negotiating, be my guest - you'll be wrong to say both are equally to blame, imo, but that is not what I am arguing about here. What I am arguing about is who is responsible for putting the destruction of the baseline, i.e. the shutdown of the government and possibly a failure to raise the debt limit, as the result of negotiation failure. Do you agree, yes or no, that it is the Republicans who are responsible for this? Have you read any of my posts? How many times do I have to say that I don't accept your distinction, the destruction of the baseline, and / or the acute cause of it, as the crux of the issue? I am discussing the fact that the government is currently shut down (and that there is some degree of uncertainty over the raising of the debt limit). In this context, I am asking the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". The answer I gave to that question is Republicans, because they made the shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure. Again, if you want to ask a different question, like "who has refused to negotiate", then be my guest - that is not the question I'm interested in in the context of this discussion. I am asking you what is your answer to the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". If your answer is "Republicans", then we agree. If your answer is "both parties", then you can't simply ignore my arguments because they're clearly relevant, and replying to me that both parties have refused to negotiate simply does not answer the question being asked, because refusal to negotiate does not in itself result in a government shutdown. It normally results in the status quo/in an unchanged baseline.
The shutdown is the legally prescribed outcome of a failure to agree on spending. Republicans didn't put it there, it has always been there. "Normally" both sides either come to an agreement on the new spending appropriation, or, agree to maintain the baseline. Either way, an agreement is required and a failure to agree results in a shutdown.
Now, if you consider the status quo to be the baseline and I'll again direct you to the Bush tax cut expiration deal. When that was being negotiated the status quo - the tax code as it was, would be destroyed in the event that an agreement couldn't be reached. Moreover, the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet, so the status quo doesn't include it.
Alternatively you can look to current law to describe the baseline. You can say that the ACA is to go into effect, or the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and so those things happening are part of the baseline.
There's a problem here. Normally, both the status quo and the legal baseline are roughly the same thing. So when you say that normally the baseline is preserved, you're also saying that normally the status quo is preserved. Normally we do not pass a law, and then expect a future, different legislature to implement it as is.
Additionally, I consider who is or is not willing to negotiate to be relevant to the question "who is to blame".
|
Given an opportunity to replace every member of Congress, 60 percent of Americans would favor an all-inclusive congressional overhaul, while only 35 percent said they would keep some members, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday.
The new fire-them-all figure -- the highest percentage that poll has ever recorded -- appears as the government has been shut down for more than a week and the U.S. approaches a historic default on Oct. 17.
Frustration with Congress has seen a dramatic spike, with multiple surveys indicating that Republicans face a larger portion of the blame. In October 2010, the NBC/WSJ poll found that 47 to 50 percent of Americans opposed firing all members of Congress. But by August 2011, 54 percent were ready to throw out every last lawmaker, and that number has been rising ever since.
Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the poll, said the latest numbers suggest that Americans are very frustrated and want Congress to resolve the shutdown before the debt ceiling deadline.
“This isn’t the calm before the storm. This is the storm before the storm," Yang said.
Source
|
On October 11 2013 19:52 Unentschieden wrote:
Blockading the Parks IS silly but thats the point. The shutdown isn´t supposed to save money or something like that but to pressure Congress into passing a Budget. Obama isn´t caving to the demands because the shutdown isn´t a bargaining chip. If the Reps could they would fund everything except ACA - and thats why Obama only accepts a complete Budget or none.
Also, even IF there were negotioations about modifiying the shutdown the Parks really aren´t a priority.
But its not just the parks. Its memorial buildings any private buildinh operating on government land fishing grounds. All the while obamas vacation spots stay open. This isnt even starting to talk about what food is going to go to once the winter goes up and mill subsidies go back to pre farm bill levels.
the idea that its justified for the guy so he can hurt his political opponents is the real joke here.
|
Ted Cruz keeps saying crazy things. Either he is one of the most cynical Harvard graduates ever or Harvard admissions has some explaining to do:
“You look at our Constitution, you look at our Bill of Rights, this is an administration that seems bound and determined to violate every single one of our Bill or Rights,” he explained.
“Tyranny!” a man in the audience shouted.
“I don’t know that they’ve yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people’s homes soon,” the Texas Republican said.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/11/ted-cruz-obama-will-start-quartering-soldiers-in-peoples-homes-soon/
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Ted Cruz might be a bug planted into the Republican party meant to destroy them. In reality, he's a stinking liberal who was recruited during his time at Harvard to infiltrate the GOP.
I can't explain him otherwise.
|
Ohio appears on the verge of adopting Obamacare's Medicaid expansion in the coming weeks, after the Obama administration approved an application from Republican Gov. John Kasich's administration to expand the program.
The federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services sent a letter Thursday to Ohio Medicaid Director John McCarthy, obtained by TPM, approving his request to increase Medicaid eligibility to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, as the Affordable Care Act prescribes.
Kasich would add his name to the growing list of Republican governors -- Michigan's Rick Snyder, Arizona's Jan Brewer and New Jersey's Chris Christie among them -- who have bucked their national party leaders and adopted a key provision of Obamacare. And he's going to go around a skeptical legislature to do it.
The Columbus Dispatch reported Friday that Kasich (R) would request permission to spend the incoming federal funding for the expansion from a seven-member legislative spending oversight panel rather than the state legislature. Kasich's office had confirmed to TPM Wednesday that seeking approval from the panel, instead of the legislature, was an option for the governor.
Source
|
On October 12 2013 05:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 19:52 Unentschieden wrote:
Blockading the Parks IS silly but thats the point. The shutdown isn´t supposed to save money or something like that but to pressure Congress into passing a Budget. Obama isn´t caving to the demands because the shutdown isn´t a bargaining chip. If the Reps could they would fund everything except ACA - and thats why Obama only accepts a complete Budget or none.
Also, even IF there were negotioations about modifiying the shutdown the Parks really aren´t a priority. But its not just the parks. Its memorial buildings any private buildinh operating on government land fishing grounds. All the while obamas vacation spots stay open. This isnt even starting to talk about what food is going to go to once the winter goes up and mill subsidies go back to pre farm bill levels. the idea that its justified for the guy so he can hurt his political opponents is the real joke here.
The whole thing is Republican damage control so they can blame Obama for their mess for the few lunatics that still follow them. Obama isn´t buckling because that would quickly escalate into validating the Republican strategy and leave only one thing unfunded: ACA.
|
Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative commentator and neurosurgeon, on Friday likened the health care law to slavery.
“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery,” Carson said, speaking at the Values Voter Summit. “And it is slavery, in a way.”
Carson, who is African American, added to applause, “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
During an address punctuated with cheers, Carson also said that there’s no such thing as a “war on women.” Smiling, he noted that pregnant women are typically treated politely, and said that the real war is on unborn children.
Source
|
well problem solved then, every woman just has to be constantly pregnant and everything will be fine :D
|
I've been a slave ever since I had to buy car insurance. Thank you "Value Voters" for showing me the light.
Now when are they going to stop mandatory car insurance? I demand emancipation!
(Could I not drive? Sure. However, a lot of places in the USA has crappy public transportation. That greatly limits many job and social opportunities.)
|
On October 12 2013 07:53 Skilledblob wrote:
well problem solved then, every woman just has to be constantly pregnant and everything will be fine :D
Unemployment isn't really that big of a problem when you suddenly realize that black people voluntarily roll a three sided die between McDonalds, unemployment, and jail. When you've taken this true fact into account, you will realize that we have negative unemployment.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 12 2013 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 03:12 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 11 2013 02:27 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. I don't know if you're doing it purpose, but did you even read the post you were replying to? I specifically underlined the distinction between being willing to negotiate or not and putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. Do you not understand this distinction or something? Again, if you want to blame both Republicans and Democrats for not negotiating, be my guest - you'll be wrong to say both are equally to blame, imo, but that is not what I am arguing about here. What I am arguing about is who is responsible for putting the destruction of the baseline, i.e. the shutdown of the government and possibly a failure to raise the debt limit, as the result of negotiation failure. Do you agree, yes or no, that it is the Republicans who are responsible for this? Have you read any of my posts? How many times do I have to say that I don't accept your distinction, the destruction of the baseline, and / or the acute cause of it, as the crux of the issue? I am discussing the fact that the government is currently shut down (and that there is some degree of uncertainty over the raising of the debt limit). In this context, I am asking the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". The answer I gave to that question is Republicans, because they made the shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure. Again, if you want to ask a different question, like "who has refused to negotiate", then be my guest - that is not the question I'm interested in in the context of this discussion. I am asking you what is your answer to the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". If your answer is "Republicans", then we agree. If your answer is "both parties", then you can't simply ignore my arguments because they're clearly relevant, and replying to me that both parties have refused to negotiate simply does not answer the question being asked, because refusal to negotiate does not in itself result in a government shutdown. It normally results in the status quo/in an unchanged baseline. The shutdown is the legally prescribed outcome of a failure to agree on spending. Republicans didn't put it there, it has always been there. "Normally" both sides either come to an agreement on the new spending appropriation, or, agree to maintain the baseline. Either way, an agreement is required and a failure to agree results in a shutdown. Now, if you consider the status quo to be the baseline and I'll again direct you to the Bush tax cut expiration deal. When that was being negotiated the status quo - the tax code as it was, would be destroyed in the event that an agreement couldn't be reached. Moreover, the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet, so the status quo doesn't include it. Alternatively you can look to current law to describe the baseline. You can say that the ACA is to go into effect, or the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and so those things happening are part of the baseline. There's a problem here. Normally, both the status quo and the legal baseline are roughly the same thing. So when you say that normally the baseline is preserved, you're also saying that normally the status quo is preserved. Normally we do not pass a law, and then expect a future, different legislature to implement it as is. Additionally, I consider who is or is not willing to negotiate to be relevant to the question "who is to blame".
Okay then, 2 USC 1a:
It shall be the duty of the executive of the State from which any Senator has been chosen to certify his election, under the seal of the State, to the President of the Senate of the United States.
That again seems fairly reasonable to me. Of course there was controversy over the certification of Electors for the Electoral College in 2000, but that's not the same as certification for a U.S. Senator: as far as I know, there's never been any controversy. Shall we keep this law?
|
On October 12 2013 07:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative commentator and neurosurgeon, on Friday likened the health care law to slavery.
“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery,” Carson said, speaking at the Values Voter Summit. “And it is slavery, in a way.”
Carson, who is African American, added to applause, “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
During an address punctuated with cheers, Carson also said that there’s no such thing as a “war on women.” Smiling, he noted that pregnant women are typically treated politely, and said that the real war is on unborn children. Source
I'm absolutely puzzled that someone educated enough to be a neurosurgeon can make such a phenomenally stupid statement. Universal healthcare is slavery, really?...
I am having regular argument with my father on whether Republican congressmen and commentators know they are lying and saying absurd stuff, and are clever and incredibly manipulative with their mostly ignorant base (my position), or if they are completely stupid and twisted themselves by their own propaganda (then it's terrifying).
I don't know what to think of a democracy where rational debate seems to have completely vanished of the political horizon. I don't think people realize how serious that is. I think, whatever happens in the future, that we will remember those years as a moment american democracy was dancing a step from the abyss. Democracy relies on it's actor's rationality and common sense.
|
On October 12 2013 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 03:12 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 11 2013 02:27 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. I don't know if you're doing it purpose, but did you even read the post you were replying to? I specifically underlined the distinction between being willing to negotiate or not and putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. Do you not understand this distinction or something? Again, if you want to blame both Republicans and Democrats for not negotiating, be my guest - you'll be wrong to say both are equally to blame, imo, but that is not what I am arguing about here. What I am arguing about is who is responsible for putting the destruction of the baseline, i.e. the shutdown of the government and possibly a failure to raise the debt limit, as the result of negotiation failure. Do you agree, yes or no, that it is the Republicans who are responsible for this? Have you read any of my posts? How many times do I have to say that I don't accept your distinction, the destruction of the baseline, and / or the acute cause of it, as the crux of the issue? I am discussing the fact that the government is currently shut down (and that there is some degree of uncertainty over the raising of the debt limit). In this context, I am asking the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". The answer I gave to that question is Republicans, because they made the shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure. Again, if you want to ask a different question, like "who has refused to negotiate", then be my guest - that is not the question I'm interested in in the context of this discussion. I am asking you what is your answer to the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". If your answer is "Republicans", then we agree. If your answer is "both parties", then you can't simply ignore my arguments because they're clearly relevant, and replying to me that both parties have refused to negotiate simply does not answer the question being asked, because refusal to negotiate does not in itself result in a government shutdown. It normally results in the status quo/in an unchanged baseline. The shutdown is the legally prescribed outcome of a failure to agree on spending. Republicans didn't put it there, it has always been there. "Normally" both sides either come to an agreement on the new spending appropriation, or, agree to maintain the baseline. Either way, an agreement is required and a failure to agree results in a shutdown. Now, if you consider the status quo to be the baseline and I'll again direct you to the Bush tax cut expiration deal. When that was being negotiated the status quo - the tax code as it was, would be destroyed in the event that an agreement couldn't be reached. Moreover, the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet, so the status quo doesn't include it. Alternatively you can look to current law to describe the baseline. You can say that the ACA is to go into effect, or the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and so those things happening are part of the baseline. There's a problem here. Normally, both the status quo and the legal baseline are roughly the same thing. So when you say that normally the baseline is preserved, you're also saying that normally the status quo is preserved. Normally we do not pass a law, and then expect a future, different legislature to implement it as is.
I think what is currently law should describe the baseline, since it is well-defined. People are able to argue about what is the status quo; for example, how long would the ACA have to be in effect before it became the status quo? Did that happen on October 1st? Unless there is a commonly agreed definition of how to determine what is 'the status quo' then it is not a good baseline. Hence I think a better baseline is the current law.
You may not expect a future legislature to implement the law as it is but there should be limits on what they can do in order to change the law. It would be perfectly acceptable for a future legislature to repeal the ACA. If the Republicans in 4 years control the Presidency, the Senate, and the House and vote to repeal the ACA then it would be repealed and the Democrats would be unable to stop it, and that's how the system should work; the Democrats would have no right to complain about the Republicans doing that.
However, the Republicans have shut-down the Government because they wish to change the current law. If both the Democrats and Republicans feel so strongly about the ACA that they would shut-down the Government to get their own way, and both sides have the power to shut-down the Government, then the Government won't function until the next election, and then only if one side wins control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. So there has to be some unarguable baseline and whichever side does not have the baseline on their side should not be able to shut-down the Government. The current law is unarguable. The status quo isn't (although I would be happy to see a rigorous definition of 'the status quo'). There are probably some other properties you want of the baseline, but if we keep going that way then we will end having to axiomatise political systems.
Additionally, I consider who is or is not willing to negotiate to be relevant to the question "who is to blame".
Why not? The Republicans control the House and Boehner refuses to allow a vote on a clean CR. That puts the blame on him unless he can justify why he is preventing a vote. Originally he wanted to sabotage the ACA. Now his explanation seems to be that the Democrats are refusing to negotiate. So in order to decide "who is to blame" one needs to examine the validity of those arguments put forth by the Republicans and if those statements are true then also decide if they justify shutting down the Government.
|
Back tracking a bit to the economics discussion, it's apropos that Chomsky chose to write an article about capitalism recently - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/noam-chomsky-what-id-like-to-see-on-front-pages-of-newspapers-29654898.html
It's a fascinating article, damn is it long (I'm in the middle of reading it right now).
Some quotes
it basically adhered to the principle which was enunciated simply by John Jay, the president of the Continental Congress, then first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and as he put it, "those who own the country ought to govern it". That's the primary doctrine of RECD to the present.
Turning to the economy, the core of the economy today is financial institutions. They've vastly expanded since the 1970s, along with a parallel development - accelerated shift of production abroad. There have also been critical changes in the character of financial institutions.
If you go back to the 1960s, banks were banks. If you had some money, you put it in the bank to lend it to somebody to buy a house or start a business, or whatever. Now that's a very marginal aspect of financial institutions today.
They're mostly devoted to intricate, exotic manipulations with markets. And they're huge. In the United States, financial institutions, big banks mostly, had 40% of corporate profit in 2007. That was on the eve of the financial crisis, for which they were largely responsible. After the crisis, a number of professional economists - Nobel laureate Robert Solow, Harvard's Benjamin Friedman - wrote articles in which they pointed out that economists haven't done much study of the impact of the financial institutions on the economy.
Which is kind of remarkable, considering its scale. But after the crisis they took a look and they both concluded that probably the impact of the financial institutions on the economy is negative. Actually there are some who are much more outspoken than that. The most respected financial correspondent in the English-speaking world is Martin Wolf of the Financial Times. He writes that the "out-of-control financial sector is eating out the modern market economy from the inside, just as the larva of the spider wasp eats out the host in which it has been laid". By "the market economy" he means the productive economy.
|
Chomsky is always a good read, this one is amazing- some insight on things I didn't know (at least not the full story, like some of Kennedy's decisions during the Cuban missile crisis). Thanks a lot for the link.
|
Senate Republicans blocked a debt ceiling extension from advancing on Saturday, bringing the country one step closer to a catastrophic debt default.
The motion to proceed to the Democrats' bill received 53 votes in favor and 45 against, falling short of the 60 needed to begin debate. Every Republican senator voted to filibuster it. The bill would have raised the debt limit until the end of 2014 with no policy add-ons.
"A few extremist Republicans ... too radical to compromise, could force a default on the nation's financial obligations for the first time ever," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "What I see staring us in the face is not a pleasant picture."
After rejecting a House GOP proposal, Reid shot down an offer by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to resolve the impasse, and has initiated talks with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Reid, McConnell, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) met Saturday morning to begin new discussions, according to a source familiar with the matter.
"We want a better [continuing resolution] and longer debt ceiling and don't view those as concessions," said a Senate Democratic leadership aide.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
