|
On October 02 2013 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:I really hope people aren't dumb enough to buy into this piecemeal budgeting plan republicans are trying to pull now. Oh you won't sign a bill defunding the ACA... Well how about we pick and choose pieces (never to include the ACA) of government to fund. Republicans say you don't want to fund them because you don't care about veterans, etc...While reasonable people know if he did start this piecemeal crap republicans will never fund the ACA. There is a larger issue than the ACA at play here it is the fundamental stability of democracy. If the Tea Party is successful with this tactic from now on thats the only way they will 'legislate'. They had years to come up with viable alterations or improvements which if independent assessors concluded were more effective at reducing healthcare costs and providing coverage to more Americans would have easily been considered and likely included... But that's not what they did. They went on lying for months about ridiculous things like Planned Parenthood, 'Death Panels', and Uncle Sam in womens Vaginas.... + Show Spoiler +That among 1000's of other reasons are why most reasonable people understand why Obama would not take republicans seriously when they say they want to 'negotiate'.
That commercial always makes me fucking angry, it's such a gross misrepresentation of ACA. Fucking disgusting.
|
On October 02 2013 10:39 Eben wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 10:35 biology]major wrote:On October 02 2013 10:26 Badfatpanda wrote:On October 02 2013 10:16 igotmyown wrote:
So forget about all the arguments for a second, what's going to happen?
I've assumed people would get more and more annoyed, and the backlash would make one side cave/compromise.
And how long will this last? I don't think it will last out the week, although something to keep in mind is that the tea party republicans knew full well they'd take the public beating for this shutdown and that the democrats would sit pretty in this shit heap. They still decided to pull the trigger and they're the party whose compromise will most likely be required to end this. Could go on for a while, nobody knows. At this point we just ride it out and keep lol-ing at the national heads as our deficit climbs. So if they don't reach a compromise (hypothetically), at what point will they lose their jobs? I mean Federal government is more important than some congressmen so I imagine after a few weeks they all get fired. I don't think they can lose their jobs.. not till elections in 2014. I imagine if it went on for months that people would start to riot and they would have to pass SOMETHING
Depends on the state, some allow its citizens to have recall votes under certain conditions(usually some % of the population signs a petition or something similar).
|
On October 02 2013 10:44 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 09:59 Saryph wrote:On October 02 2013 09:52 Fix637 wrote:
The entire situation is really unfortunate, and incredibly idiotic.
I understand the Republicans wanting to combat Obamacare, so far as I understand them sticking up for their party values. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I know absolutely nothing about the Affordable Care Act. Since I'm a college student I have insurance through my parents until I'm 26, so the issue doesn't immediately concern me.
However, whether you agree with Obamacare or not this is absolutely the wrong time to engage in petty partisanship. Holding hostage the livelihood of almost one million people for something so petty is absurd. The Affordable Care Act is law. It passed the legislative process and was upheld by the supreme court. At this point it isn't going anywhere.
The worst part about this, the thing that really makes me angry, is the fact that every person in Congress is still collecting a paycheck despite utterly failing to do their jobs. There are a few Representatives and Senators who are denying or donating their income until the impasse is over, but it's not nearly enough.
None of them, including the President, should be paid until this is sorted out. Since you said you know nothing about the ACA I'll teach you one thing: You have insurance through your parents until age 26 (like you said) because of it.  I can teach him one more thing. Because of the ACA, when you graduate from college, you will have significantly more difficulty finding employment wherein you work more than 30 hours a week.
Yeah... Except the fact that many of those places would still be plenty profitable and are just disregarding the humanity of their employees to make their record profits even bigger. Even Wal-Mart has actually increased its number of full time employees because they realize in the long run not only does it make them a much more attractive employer, it will cost them less in the long run.
Cutting employees to part time to avoid providing them basic healthcare is not very different from hiding money offshore to avoid paying taxes on it. It's greed pure and simple.
The fact is that the middle class has been working harder and harder for less and less. But it's not as if the difference is lost in the ether, since tax cuts, and other policies have resulted in an ever increasingly wealthy few enjoying unprecedented increases in income and wealth ownership
![[image loading]](http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_income_top_one_percent.png)
![[image loading]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png)
A picture that literally shows that even conservatives think this is ridiculous if they could just get out of their own way...
|
On October 02 2013 11:12 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 10:39 Eben wrote:On October 02 2013 10:35 biology]major wrote:On October 02 2013 10:26 Badfatpanda wrote:On October 02 2013 10:16 igotmyown wrote:
So forget about all the arguments for a second, what's going to happen?
I've assumed people would get more and more annoyed, and the backlash would make one side cave/compromise.
And how long will this last? I don't think it will last out the week, although something to keep in mind is that the tea party republicans knew full well they'd take the public beating for this shutdown and that the democrats would sit pretty in this shit heap. They still decided to pull the trigger and they're the party whose compromise will most likely be required to end this. Could go on for a while, nobody knows. At this point we just ride it out and keep lol-ing at the national heads as our deficit climbs. So if they don't reach a compromise (hypothetically), at what point will they lose their jobs? I mean Federal government is more important than some congressmen so I imagine after a few weeks they all get fired. I don't think they can lose their jobs.. not till elections in 2014. I imagine if it went on for months that people would start to riot and they would have to pass SOMETHING Depends on the state, some allow its citizens to have recall votes under certain conditions(usually some % of the population signs a petition or something similar).
I thought that only related to State level congress and not the Federal one? Maybe I am wrong though.
|
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
|
On October 02 2013 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 10:44 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 09:59 Saryph wrote:On October 02 2013 09:52 Fix637 wrote:
The entire situation is really unfortunate, and incredibly idiotic.
I understand the Republicans wanting to combat Obamacare, so far as I understand them sticking up for their party values. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I know absolutely nothing about the Affordable Care Act. Since I'm a college student I have insurance through my parents until I'm 26, so the issue doesn't immediately concern me.
However, whether you agree with Obamacare or not this is absolutely the wrong time to engage in petty partisanship. Holding hostage the livelihood of almost one million people for something so petty is absurd. The Affordable Care Act is law. It passed the legislative process and was upheld by the supreme court. At this point it isn't going anywhere.
The worst part about this, the thing that really makes me angry, is the fact that every person in Congress is still collecting a paycheck despite utterly failing to do their jobs. There are a few Representatives and Senators who are denying or donating their income until the impasse is over, but it's not nearly enough.
None of them, including the President, should be paid until this is sorted out. Since you said you know nothing about the ACA I'll teach you one thing: You have insurance through your parents until age 26 (like you said) because of it. I can teach him one more thing. Because of the ACA, when you graduate from college, you will have significantly more difficulty finding employment wherein you work more than 30 hours a week. Yeah... Except the fact that many of those places would still be plenty profitable and are just disregarding the humanity of their employees to make their record profits even bigger. Even Wal-Mart has actually increased its number of full time employees because they realize in the long run not only does it make them a much more attractive employer, it will cost them less in the long run. Cutting employees to part time to avoid providing them basic healthcare is not very different from hiding money offshore to avoid paying taxes on it. It's greed pure and simple. The fact is that the middle class has been working harder and harder for less and less. But it's not as if the difference is lost in the ether. While tax cuts, and an ever increasingly wealthy few have enjoyed unprecedented increases in income and wealth ownership + Show Spoiler +A picture that literally shows that even conservatives think this is ridiculous if they could just get out of their own way...
In regards to healthcare costs, you should post the one that shows median income growth, vs insurance premium. Now that's disgusting.
|
On October 02 2013 11:15 Fix637 wrote:Show nested quote +Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later. The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA. I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it. Show nested quote +How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole) It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
|
On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say.
The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function.
It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work. Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas. The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost. There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D
That makes absolutely no sense given the context of what we were talking about.
You do understand that there is a difference between being uneducated as in not having a degree from a University and being uneducated as in not having read anything about history. Plenty of collage graduates have never read a goddamn history book in their lives. Fortunately, I've found the time to read many.
On October 02 2013 06:26 AdamBanks wrote:
extremely educated? by todays standards? i dunno about that one, but thats just opinion based on no research
You should probably research the Founding Fathers then... because they were highly, highly educated.
On October 02 2013 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Sc2Super I'm not going to derail the thread to encourage your ignorance so just do us a favor and don't tell us what "The Founders" would (EDIT:have) thought... please and thank you
1. Don't make statements and assertions if you aren't going to back them up.
2. A discussion about the Founding Father's definitely has a place here so it's not necessarily off-topic
3. If you appeal to "the way the system is supposed to work" then it is only logical for me to seek the opinions of the people who designed the system.
|
lmao @ that picture.... the top 20% should have around 30% of the wealth? Yet another study revealing how ignorant the average person really is.
|
On October 02 2013 11:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 11:15 Fix637 wrote:Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later. The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA. I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it. How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole) It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all. There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
|
On October 02 2013 06:37 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas.
The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost. There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D He rejects Obamacare because he read in some blog that it was some sort of conspiracy to transition to universal healthcare and he doesn't like crazy socialized medicine because he's not all that opposed to poor people dying since they're failures anyway. He does say that they could work harder and stop being failures but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't help everybody.
1. Look at the evidence. Even Harry Reid says that Obamacare will fail and that it is only a stopping point in the quest for a single payer system.
2. I would MUCH rather have a single-payer system than Obamacare. A single-payer system would suck, but at least it would work. Obamacare is just a gigantic failure.
3. I have not once said that poor people should just work harder, or that they can stop being "failures" (never called anyone a failure) by working harder. In fact, that was specifically something that liberals have thrown at me in this thread when I spoke of being incapable of finding a better job at this time.
4. How about you drop the hostility and actually argue the point?
|
On October 02 2013 03:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 03:01 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2013 21:11 electronic voyeur wrote:http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/30/20758038-shutdown-begins-as-congress-remains-deadlocked?liteThe US Federal government has officially shut down.For the first time in nearly two decades, the federal government staggered into a partial shutdown Monday at midnight after congressional Republicans stubbornly demanded changes in the nation's health care law as the price for essential federal funding and President Barack Obama and Democrats adamantly refused. As Congress gridlocked, Obama said a "shutdown will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away," with hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed and veterans' centers, national parks, most of the space agency and other government operations shuttered. He laid the blame at the feet of House Republicans, whom he accused of seeking to tie government funding to ideological demands, "all to save face after making some impossible promises to the extreme right wing of their party.”
The shutdown is expected to place tens of thousands of federal workers on furlough, close national parks and monuments, and disrupt services like food assistance and IRS audits.
Services like benefit payments and national security operations would go on as usual, and -- because of a bipartisan measure passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the president late Monday -- members of the military will continue to be paid.
The new health care insurance "exchanges" mandated by the new health care law also went live even as the shutdown became official.
The full force of the shutdown has yet to be measured, and its effects have yet to be fully felt. Yet it is certain that the shutdown will have devastating short term and long term effects on all sectors of the US government. Do you think Obamacare should be revised? Should Congress have compromised? What could the government have done to prevent such a devastating event? Hey look, two quotes about the Democratic President pointing fingers, and zero from the Republicans. Let me help out on the overall stream of giving token respect to the other side!
Boehner at a Republican Meeting
"If you really want to fight, you've got to put everything on the table."
Boehner House Floor
"I would say to the president, this is not about me," Mr. Boehner said. "It's not about Republicans. It's about fairness to the American people."
Boehner's Press Office
“Rejecting the House-passed effort to go to conference, Senate Democrats today slammed the door on re-opening the federal government by refusing to talk. This morning, Senate Democrats rejected regular order, rejected common-sense efforts to re-open the government, and rejected fairness for all Americans under the President’s health care law. House Republicans will continue our efforts to keep the government running. We hope that Senate Democrats – and President Obama – change course and start working with us on behalf of the American people.”
I could find others as well, this is just samplingI never thought Boehner would be in it for the fight. He's gone far beyond when I thought he would stop. I applaud him for the move to threaten the government shutdown, which the Democrats called. His followup compromise to a delay in individual mandate and repeal of the medical device tax I'm still dubious on. If you're going to shut down the government over it, start from the position of strength and wait until the Democrats come to the table on compromise (they haven't). Republicans stand tough on this, they keep the House and might pick up seats in Senate (I forget which vulnerable ones are up for grabs this coming round). Boehner continues in this aggressive vein and he stands to gain some conservative support. It's coming just as the base sees their plans going up or disappearing, and hearing the stories from friends and relatives. Time to remember just how much is deemed a critical service and not subject to the shutdown! lol @ you thinking this is good for your party. There's a reason even the party strategists including Rove are against this tactic, there's a reason party leadership including Boehner were against it before they were for it, and there's a reason all polling shows the public blames the republicans more. You really think the letter Boehner received from tea party members prompted him to change his mind for the strategic reasoning you state above? Before that letter, which had little to do with your strategic reasoning, Boehner was against this tactic. Staging a policy fight over a routine must-pass funding measure is folly plain and simple. Do you think that in principle, a party should be able to force compromise on any policy they choose by bringing government to a shutdown?
Rove represents the Bush-era strategists that rode the mistake of Gore (and before him, the political tide of Reagan) into office. The inside-the-beltway strategists are precisely the kind that would never support a real fight on the issues, only what was politically favorable at the moment. Make no mistakes, conservatism's pressure made the leadership go this way against their own desires. It was no single letter, it was the multitude of calls and pressure from their constituents that brought force behind the change this time around. I hope it lasts.
It is by reason that the House controls the purse strings. All spending and taxing measures must start there. Government by continuing resolution is a disgrace from start to finish. What this represents is a failure of Democrats to come to terms with their spending thrown against the backdrop of a massive invasion of government into the insurance industry. Was the party voted into office as a majority party in a house, and does that part represent people opposed to the bill? Then fight it with every ounce of power you have. The political opponents will not hesitate to expand the powers of executive orders by fiat or use the courts to legislate or expand the powers of the governments. Denying yourself the powers vested in the House makes no sense.
|
On October 02 2013 11:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas.
The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost. There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D That makes absolutely no sense given the context of what we were talking about. You do understand that there is a difference between being uneducated as in not having a degree from a University and being uneducated as in not having read anything about history. Plenty of collage graduates have never read a goddamn history book in their lives. Fortunately, I've found the time to read many. Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:26 AdamBanks wrote:
extremely educated? by todays standards? i dunno about that one, but thats just opinion based on no research You should probably research the Founding Fathers then... because they were highly, highly educated. Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Sc2Super I'm not going to derail the thread to encourage your ignorance so just do us a favor and don't tell us what "The Founders" would (EDIT:have) thought... please and thank you 1. Don't make statements and assertions if you aren't going to back them up. 2. A discussion about the Founding Father's definitely has a place here so it's not necessarily off-topic 3. If you appeal to "the way the system is supposed to work" then it is only logical for me to seek the opinions of the people who designed the system.
Your portrayal of my position was so asinine there was no point, and explaining to you why it was so, would be.
Just read my damn tagline/sig quote. Just so you know it was there the whole time...
|
On October 02 2013 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 11:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D That makes absolutely no sense given the context of what we were talking about. You do understand that there is a difference between being uneducated as in not having a degree from a University and being uneducated as in not having read anything about history. Plenty of collage graduates have never read a goddamn history book in their lives. Fortunately, I've found the time to read many. On October 02 2013 06:26 AdamBanks wrote:
extremely educated? by todays standards? i dunno about that one, but thats just opinion based on no research You should probably research the Founding Fathers then... because they were highly, highly educated. On October 02 2013 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Sc2Super I'm not going to derail the thread to encourage your ignorance so just do us a favor and don't tell us what "The Founders" would (EDIT:have) thought... please and thank you 1. Don't make statements and assertions if you aren't going to back them up. 2. A discussion about the Founding Father's definitely has a place here so it's not necessarily off-topic 3. If you appeal to "the way the system is supposed to work" then it is only logical for me to seek the opinions of the people who designed the system. Your portrayal of my position was so asinine there was no point, and explaining to you why it was so, would be. Just read my damn tagline/sig quote. Just so you know it was there the whole time...
Your point made no sense. Hence my saying: "I don't understand your point here."
I didn't portray you as having any opinion or position, I asked for clarification because you seemed to be rather purposefully not taking a real one, instead using cheap implication.
So you have a Thomas Jefferson quote... apparently we should take their words into account sometimes? When is it okay to take their opinions into account and when isn't it?
|
On October 02 2013 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 11:24 cLutZ wrote:On October 02 2013 11:15 Fix637 wrote:Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later. The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA. I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it. How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole) It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all. There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either. Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count... Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word) To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions. Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
|
On October 02 2013 11:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 11:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for.
The American people did that themselves.
They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan.
You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D That makes absolutely no sense given the context of what we were talking about. You do understand that there is a difference between being uneducated as in not having a degree from a University and being uneducated as in not having read anything about history. Plenty of collage graduates have never read a goddamn history book in their lives. Fortunately, I've found the time to read many. On October 02 2013 06:26 AdamBanks wrote:
extremely educated? by todays standards? i dunno about that one, but thats just opinion based on no research You should probably research the Founding Fathers then... because they were highly, highly educated. On October 02 2013 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Sc2Super I'm not going to derail the thread to encourage your ignorance so just do us a favor and don't tell us what "The Founders" would (EDIT:have) thought... please and thank you 1. Don't make statements and assertions if you aren't going to back them up. 2. A discussion about the Founding Father's definitely has a place here so it's not necessarily off-topic 3. If you appeal to "the way the system is supposed to work" then it is only logical for me to seek the opinions of the people who designed the system. Your portrayal of my position was so asinine there was no point, and explaining to you why it was so, would be. Just read my damn tagline/sig quote. Just so you know it was there the whole time... Your point made no sense. Hence my saying: "I don't understand your point here." I didn't portray you as having any opinion or position, I asked for clarification because you seemed to be rather purposefully not taking a real one, instead using cheap implication. So you have a Thomas Jefferson quote... apparently we should take their words into account sometimes? When is it okay to take their opinions into account and when isn't it?
Well others got it just fine, so I don't know what to tell you. Well...I'll try this.
It would be better for everyone if you avoided speaking to the opinions of long dead people on modern issues.
|
On October 02 2013 11:39 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 11:24 cLutZ wrote:On October 02 2013 11:15 Fix637 wrote:Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later. The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA. I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it. How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole) It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all. There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either. Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count... Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word) To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions. Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means... The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in... Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
That's why it goes to conference so they can meet somewhere in the middle (which was clearly defined as Cuts WITH Spending ratio TBD [Although it's worth mentioning the Republican Presidential candidates universally agreed that $10 in cuts for every $1 in spending wasn't enough)
Well actually you only need 51 in the senate unless you're up against Republicans who have made the filibuster (more than anyone ever) part of regular Senate procedure to do anything. Not to mention 1 year would be plenty of time to do something that has allegedly already been done by the house about 40 times.
|
Can I go to work yet
|
On October 02 2013 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:37 Djzapz wrote:On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D He rejects Obamacare because he read in some blog that it was some sort of conspiracy to transition to universal healthcare and he doesn't like crazy socialized medicine because he's not all that opposed to poor people dying since they're failures anyway. He does say that they could work harder and stop being failures but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't help everybody. 1. Look at the evidence. Even Harry Reid says that Obamacare will fail and that it is only a stopping point in the quest for a single payer system. 2. I would MUCH rather have a single-payer system than Obamacare. A single-payer system would suck, but at least it would work. Obamacare is just a gigantic failure. 3. I have not once said that poor people should just work harder, or that they can stop being "failures" (never called anyone a failure) by working harder. In fact, that was specifically something that liberals have thrown at me in this thread when I spoke of being incapable of finding a better job at this time. 4. How about you drop the hostility and actually argue the point?
Not gonna lie but who cares what Harry Reid says? The guy flips more than a gymnast. And yes, single-payer please. Definitely a better system than Obamacare.
|
On October 02 2013 11:39 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 11:24 cLutZ wrote:On October 02 2013 11:15 Fix637 wrote:Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later. The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA. I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it. How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole) It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all. There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either. Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count... Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word) To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions. Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means... The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in... Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
If American citizens hated the ACA as much as republicans claim they should have no problem winning the house, senate, and white house.
Oh wait, wasn't the 2012 election primarily about the ACA? Didn't President Obama get reelected by a huge margin while republicans lost seats in the house?
Why can't republicans take the hint that the majority of Americans do not want the ACA to be repealed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
