|
On October 02 2013 04:47 Elairec wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:38 Elairec wrote:On October 02 2013 04:30 aksfjh wrote:On October 02 2013 04:13 Elairec wrote:On October 02 2013 04:09 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:On October 02 2013 04:02 Incognoto wrote:On October 02 2013 03:59 Ryuu314 wrote:On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote:
This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect. Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way). If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public. So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate. What? If the mandate goes away the entire thing falls apart. There's no other way based on obtaining private insurance that's workable. They are asking them to postpone the mandate for individuals for one year; the same consideration they made for companies. They are also asking for congressman to be subject to the same rules and regulations as the American people. Not even close to being the same thing. The employer mandate was meant to restrict businesses from dumping a large number of people onto the public system as a, "You're on your own now, bub!" A smoothing part of the bill. Individual mandate is an essential part, without which forces insurance companies to take huge risks with the language regarding preexisting conditions, as well as creating moral hazard regarding coverage and preexisting conditions. Either everyone here is blind to it because they don't know about it, or you're being naïve or possibly you are ignoring it: employers are already trying to dump health insurance and take the fines that come their way. In some circumstances it even saves them money by doing this. My ex employer was trying to negotiate this into our union contract this past year and I know of two other companies (rather large corporations) that are trying to do the same. These same companies have already cut out hiring any new full time employees and making everything part time work in order to manage benefits paid out. This new law doesn't make it cheaper for businesses to run and unfortunately they will cut costs elsewhere to cover it. The end result will most likely be the companies taking the fines and "dumping a large number of people onto the public system". You're right, the law isn't perfect and it might even be seriously flawed. Better shut down the government, potentially costing the economy billions of dollars, rather than come up with serious proposals for improving it! No that won't do any good either. However, postponing the individual mandate and holding congressmen to the same level as the people they serve would have had the government open this morning. That was all the house wanted last night; those two provisions but they are the ones being hard headed? Sure.
Please don't keep repeating this nonsense. See Videos above.
|
On October 02 2013 04:47 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:43 MstrJinbo wrote:
I'd say the two sides need to negotiate a settlement. Just thought if point out, only one of the two parties have publicly declared there weren't going to negotiate to reopen the government. Anyone Care to guess which one? Negotiation cannot happen at the barrel of a gun.
Of course it can.
|
On October 02 2013 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ok Kait your're right...sort of. The republican congressional members were elected to do what they are doing. The problem is that the reason they only won the house is because they gerrymandered the districts to include so many wackos that only republicans could win them.
this is partially evidenced in how despite congressional positions resulting from the size of a given states population, republicans won the house with many less votes than democrats received.
Hasn't worked with congress...? You have got to be joking....? You want Obama to 'work' with these guys......?
Gerrymandering is hardly a Republican-only phenomenon. Both parties do it every chance they get. As far as working with Congress, well, he had better or he's going to have an embarrassingly ineffective 6 of 8 years, not to mention the first two years was all about Obamacare which will prove itself a major failure over time. So, yeah, if he wants to accomplish anything, he will need to 'work with' Congress.
edit: Also, gerrymandering is not the reason they have a majority in the House, it just gave them a somewhat larger majority than they would have had.
|
On October 02 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:29 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote:
The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof. Would you say the same thing if in the future a relatively small group of Democrats in the House threaten to shut down the government if a law isn't passed that bans assault weapons? Saying you'll agree to fund the government in exchange for getting what you want isn't negotiation, it's coercion.
I'd disagree with their position, but be fine with the means they're using to fight for it.
This whole government shutdown thing doesn't tell me repubs are evil for holding the government hostage or whatever, it tells me we might want to change how we go about deciding budgets.
But as I said before, things worked out OK in 1995. I think all the hype is just the 24-hour news cycle being shitty as usual.
|
On October 02 2013 04:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Not to mention that it didn't hurt Republicans much politically, and that it also forced Clinton to start working with them on key issues.
You're the same guy who called the last election as a massive win for Romney, right?
Are you willing to stand by your convictions on which party will be hurt by this the most?
|
On October 02 2013 04:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:47 acker wrote:On October 02 2013 04:43 MstrJinbo wrote:
I'd say the two sides need to negotiate a settlement. Just thought if point out, only one of the two parties have publicly declared there weren't going to negotiate to reopen the government. Anyone Care to guess which one? Negotiation cannot happen at the barrel of a gun. Of course it can.
Republicans in a nutshell?
I hope not.
|
On October 02 2013 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:47 Elairec wrote:On October 02 2013 04:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:38 Elairec wrote:On October 02 2013 04:30 aksfjh wrote:On October 02 2013 04:13 Elairec wrote:On October 02 2013 04:09 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:On October 02 2013 04:02 Incognoto wrote:On October 02 2013 03:59 Ryuu314 wrote:
[quote]
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public. So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate. What? If the mandate goes away the entire thing falls apart. There's no other way based on obtaining private insurance that's workable. They are asking them to postpone the mandate for individuals for one year; the same consideration they made for companies. They are also asking for congressman to be subject to the same rules and regulations as the American people. Not even close to being the same thing. The employer mandate was meant to restrict businesses from dumping a large number of people onto the public system as a, "You're on your own now, bub!" A smoothing part of the bill. Individual mandate is an essential part, without which forces insurance companies to take huge risks with the language regarding preexisting conditions, as well as creating moral hazard regarding coverage and preexisting conditions. Either everyone here is blind to it because they don't know about it, or you're being naïve or possibly you are ignoring it: employers are already trying to dump health insurance and take the fines that come their way. In some circumstances it even saves them money by doing this. My ex employer was trying to negotiate this into our union contract this past year and I know of two other companies (rather large corporations) that are trying to do the same. These same companies have already cut out hiring any new full time employees and making everything part time work in order to manage benefits paid out. This new law doesn't make it cheaper for businesses to run and unfortunately they will cut costs elsewhere to cover it. The end result will most likely be the companies taking the fines and "dumping a large number of people onto the public system". You're right, the law isn't perfect and it might even be seriously flawed. Better shut down the government, potentially costing the economy billions of dollars, rather than come up with serious proposals for improving it! No that won't do any good either. However, postponing the individual mandate and holding congressmen to the same level as the people they serve would have had the government open this morning. That was all the house wanted last night; those two provisions but they are the ones being hard headed? Sure. Please don't keep repeating this nonsense. See Videos above.
I'm next to positive the same sound bites could be had from Democrats who want to turn around laws enacted by Republicans and have a Republican president only have one term. What's the point? You showed that they all say stupid shit about each other ... Doesn't change the fact that if the Senate wasn't so hell bent on making any bill doa when it got to them, the government would be open today.
|
On October 02 2013 04:47 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:43 MstrJinbo wrote:
I'd say the two sides need to negotiate a settlement. Just thought if point out, only one of the two parties have publicly declared there weren't going to negotiate to reopen the government. Anyone Care to guess which one? The Republicans, of course. Negotiation cannot happen at the barrel of a gun.
Wrong try again. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/325747-senate-dems-reject-formal-talks-with-house-to-end-shutdown
For those unfamiliar with American politics, when the house and senate pass bills with differences. They hold what's called a conference committee to work out the differences.
Edit: at least that's what they are supposed to do.
|
All I got to say, is this sucks for all tourists who wanted to go to any of America's National Park.
|
Do you think Obamacare should be revised?
Revise it or make it where the congress and president are subscribers. The fact that they conveniently exempted themselves from it is reason enough to flag this plan as "not everything they've made it out to be."
|
On October 02 2013 04:55 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:47 acker wrote:On October 02 2013 04:43 MstrJinbo wrote:
I'd say the two sides need to negotiate a settlement. Just thought if point out, only one of the two parties have publicly declared there weren't going to negotiate to reopen the government. Anyone Care to guess which one? The Republicans, of course. Negotiation cannot happen at the barrel of a gun. Wrong try again. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/325747-senate-dems-reject-formal-talks-with-house-to-end-shutdownFor those unfamiliar with American politics, when the house and senate pass bills with differences. They hold what's called a conference committee to work out the differences. Edit: at least that's what they are supposed to do.
There's nothing to negotiate. Dems are not going to concede to a delay. Why?
Because they'll have to do this crap again in a few months. What concessions will Dems be forced to make then?
Let's also not ignore the fact that Repubs have refused to have a budget conference with Dems, after complaining about the Senate not passing a budget, for months prior to this.
|
On October 02 2013 04:50 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Not to mention that it didn't hurt Republicans much politically, and that it also forced Clinton to start working with them on key issues. You're the same guy who called the last election as a massive win for Romney, right? Are you willing to stand by your convictions on which party will be hurt by this the most?
I said I was pretty sure it would be a win for Romney.
Look at the results from the last government shut-down. We didn't get hurt very bad from it in the 90s and we won't get hurt very bad by it now. Besides, polls show that both parties will take a decent amount of the blame. Considering the fact that the shutdown sounds way worse than it actually is, especially with the military being funded, the public opinion on this isn't going to be any major factor in the election. Well... Tea Party approval of it will be huge, and that could help the Republicans win some close mid-term elections, but other than that the public opinion won't be an issue. The political capital we stand to gain if Obama caves would far outweigh any actual backlash.
Of course I could be wrong about my predictions of the future, just as I said I could be wrong about Romney. But I am not wrong about the results of the shutdown in the 90s.
|
On October 02 2013 04:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:29 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote:
The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof. Would you say the same thing if in the future a relatively small group of Democrats in the House threaten to shut down the government if a law isn't passed that bans assault weapons? Saying you'll agree to fund the government in exchange for getting what you want isn't negotiation, it's coercion. A large enough block of votes to prevent something they don't want from passing ? That's not really a "relatively small group", is it ?
If you won't answer me I won't answer you : ) You might want to look up the definition of relative in the dictionary however.
|
As Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie enough times, people will start to believe it and even you come to believe it yourself. That's exactly what seems to have happened with Obamacare.
The starting point is that businessmen don't like it because they want everything to be privatized because that gives them more money and power. Their disproportionate influence in the media and government gives them the platform to inculcate their lie.
The well-off and the more easily led members of the public soon start to believe it. Bitching about something is a form of bonding, and people in factories will regurgitate what they heard on Glenn Beck to give them something to talk about. And it keeps getting repeated. Little by little, the crafty businessmen keep turning the dial on the hysteria. The volume gets louder and louder, the base get more impassioned, and eventually fence-sitting people will have to make concessions merely to avoid the wrath of these fanatics. Then you get "moderates" making apologies and trying to justify this standpoint which has absolutely no rational basis to it other than that businessmen don't like it.
When is the public going to wake up and see that they're being played?
|
This says everything we need to know about the Republican party's faith in the American people and the democratic process.
Who cares who the people voted for, who cares what these people's representatives voted into law, who cares that the Supreme Court even voted approvingly on the law's constitutionality...
No -- our democratic processes don't matter to them. If they say "america doesn't like this", what that really means is they and their lobbyists don't like it. If America didn't like it, then the elections would take care of it, eventually.
After 2012 we were told the GOP would re-evaluate itself and try to better understand the electorate. That was obviously a lot of BS. So 2016 will come and go, with Republicans again looking like a party of no real ideas except to hate their opponents. They'll lose. If Republicans actually want to give America alternative ideas to the Democratic Party, then they should do that -- in the election. But they've just become the Arrogance Party. This is really all they stand for anymore -- pure spitefulness and obstructionism.
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function.
|
On October 02 2013 04:58 Joedaddy wrote:Revise it or make it where the congress and president are subscribers. The fact that they conveniently exempted themselves from it is reason enough to flag this plan as "not everything they've made it out to be."
Saying that they exempted themselves from it is misleading. The purpose of the ACA is to get people without insurance to purchase insurance, and to provide subsidies for those who can't afford it. Congress already has an insurance plan, so just like every other person in the country who gets insurance through their employers, they won't have to go to the exchanges to get insurance.
|
On October 02 2013 04:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ok Kait your're right...sort of. The republican congressional members were elected to do what they are doing. The problem is that the reason they only won the house is because they gerrymandered the districts to include so many wackos that only republicans could win them.
this is partially evidenced in how despite congressional positions resulting from the size of a given states population, republicans won the house with many less votes than democrats received.
Hasn't worked with congress...? You have got to be joking....? You want Obama to 'work' with these guys......?
Gerrymandering is hardly a Republican-only phenomenon. Both parties do it every chance they get. As far as working with Congress, well, he had better or he's going to have an embarrassingly ineffective 6 of 8 years, not to mention the first two years was all about Obamacare which will prove itself a major failure over time. So, yeah, if he wants to accomplish anything, he will need to 'work with' Congress.
The level and extent of gerrymandering by republicans is pretty unprecedented. Now they are paying for it. They pushed their districts so far right with gerrymandering now even the ones elected in those districts aren't right-wing enough to keep their seats without pleasing the hordes with inane and wasteful theatrics.
How is it you work with people who have made it their primary goal to undermine and repeal any and everything you do. Unless by 'work with' you mean ignore he won the election and just implement the policies the country voted against when they elected him...
Instead of 42 votes against the ACA congress could of actually got something done with all that time and money they say democrats are wasting and passed something that would help the American people instead of appease their nutjob base.
Oh except they have already made it clear they have no interest in actually helping Obama make the country better, they have made it their purpose to oppose him even when he is agreeing with the position they just held before he agreed.
Only the slowest of the slow actually think that the tea party wants anything less than impeachment(the less brain damaged ones at least realize this is more ridiculous than getting the president to sign a bill repealing one of his biggest political accomplishments...) From day 1 they decided to do anything in their power to prevent Obama from having any success, Americans be damned.
To claim the Tea Party has even the slightest desire to compromise or 'work with' Obama takes an ignorance nearly unparalleled in the universe
|
On October 02 2013 04:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ok Kait your're right...sort of. The republican congressional members were elected to do what they are doing. The problem is that the reason they only won the house is because they gerrymandered the districts to include so many wackos that only republicans could win them.
this is partially evidenced in how despite congressional positions resulting from the size of a given states population, republicans won the house with many less votes than democrats received.
Hasn't worked with congress...? You have got to be joking....? You want Obama to 'work' with these guys......?
Gerrymandering is hardly a Republican-only phenomenon. Both parties do it every chance they get. As far as working with Congress, well, he had better or he's going to have an embarrassingly ineffective 6 of 8 years, not to mention the first two years was all about Obamacare which will prove itself a major failure over time. So, yeah, if he wants to accomplish anything, he will need to 'work with' Congress. edit: Also, gerrymandering is not the reason they have a majority in the House, it just gave them a somewhat larger majority than they would have had.
Yea, that's actually not true. Republicans are far more guilty of gerrymandering than Democrats, at least at this point in time. You're a big boy, so you can find the articles in Google (or dig through my post history yesterday).
|
On October 02 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:58 Joedaddy wrote:Do you think Obamacare should be revised? Revise it or make it where the congress and president are subscribers. The fact that they conveniently exempted themselves from it is reason enough to flag this plan as "not everything they've made it out to be." Saying that they exempted themselves from it is misleading. The purpose of the ACA is to get people without insurance to purchase insurance, and to provide subsidies for those who can't afford it. Congress already has an insurance plan, so just like every other person in the country who gets insurance through their employers, they won't have to go to the exchanges to get insurance.
Booyah.
Question, did the shutdown in the 1990's helped Bill Clinton to get reelected? (news here say so but I've seen US people say no)
|
On October 02 2013 04:55 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:47 acker wrote:On October 02 2013 04:43 MstrJinbo wrote:
I'd say the two sides need to negotiate a settlement. Just thought if point out, only one of the two parties have publicly declared there weren't going to negotiate to reopen the government. Anyone Care to guess which one? The Republicans, of course. Negotiation cannot happen at the barrel of a gun. Wrong try again. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/325747-senate-dems-reject-formal-talks-with-house-to-end-shutdownFor those unfamiliar with American politics, when the house and senate pass bills with differences. They hold what's called a conference committee to work out the differences. Edit: at least that's what they are supposed to do.
I'll try again, then. The Republicans!
...Unless, of course, you seriously consider government funding an acceptable hostage to take for "negotiations". Judging from other Republican comments here, this may be the case.
On October 02 2013 05:04 Swiipii wrote:
Question, did the shutdown in the 1990's helped Bill Clinton to get reelected? (news here say so but I've seen US people say no)
Short Answer: Wikipedia.
Long Answer: Wikipedia and its sources.
Short answer: Yes. Even the conservatives here won't question that the government shutdown was negative for Republicans for the election year, even if they think it somehow helped them bargain with Clinton afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
