|
It's a depressing event, and I mean both some of these comments and the reality of the situation.
For one, you have people who want stuff like the NIH, like Mine Safety Inspections to be eliminted. Those are the people happy with the shutdown, because guess what? NIH funding, Safety Inspections now aren't funded. Neat, isn't it? They get their way in more way than one, because government is bad to them, or to their interests. News Link
Then you get those who politicize the event. Workers in a national park don't care. They don't want to deny you for a political reason WW2 vets. That's your politicians, see Bachmann, who want to try to elicit an emotional response and claim how bad it is that the "Democrats" are doing this. News Link
While this isn't the end of the world, it's depressing. You know why? Some people here actually believe that this is the Democrats fault. A belief that has absolutely zero basis in reality. There are people who believe that both sides are bad, and all they are saying when they say that is they don't pay close attention to politics, but gee that sure sounds smart, don't it.
The best part is, people want you to be confused and apathetic. They want things to be that complex that you don't care, and if you don't care, or blame both, then you're part of the problem. Your apathy and ignorance enables actions like this, enables and spreads confusion.
So, I encourage people to take an interest in this situation heavily. Read comments about the congress, about how Republicans react to Obamacare. Comments like Rand Paul R-Texas or Their "Discussions" About it Prior to the Shutdown.
Simply put, if you understand this situation and approve of it, you're approving of smoe rather twisted things to attempt to deny other americans Health care. Except... the exchanges opened. They always were going to. Everyone in congress knew the shutdown wouldn't stop the exchanges.. They Just are so happy to shutdown the government that it doesn't matter that they tried to repeal 40+ times before!
|
On October 03 2013 20:07 Parnage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 19:31 b0rt_ wrote:On October 03 2013 18:31 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
Obamacare aka Affordable Healthcare act is a law, it was found constitutional by the supreme court. Not funding it is against the law. The time for discussion about what it should be is over. They already had lots of chances to change it and they didn't. You can't just shut down the government cause you're unhappy you lost. This is causing people to become jobless while the people who shut down the government still get paid.
If I don't want to pay taxes on something am I allowed to do that? Who holds the government responsible for its actions... Exactly, where does this end? If the GOP get power next election (I hope for the world they never do) then should the democrats hold them to ransom for whatever they like? It's law. Hey, as we know once it's the law you can never change things, and the courts have always been correct on every issue. Just read up on that Dred Scott fellow. Saying something is the law doesn't mean it's right. Not that I am implying the Act is wrong or right I really don't care at this point. The ramifications or lack thereof will be proven down the line. The government has done this before, it'll most likely do this again it happens when the sides don't want to work together. The funny bit is watching all the news sources point to things like Parks being closed as big issues all of a sudden while the National Park's are literally falling apart due to being ignored otherwise. Besides I don't remember seeing many people except "fringes" complaining about the Senate never signing off on a Budget for what? 3 years now? I do find politics much more amusing thanks to this, it's neat watching history play out before you.
Yeah, look how well this worked out for the Republicans in 1995. Oh wait, it worked out terribly economically, got them more blame than Clinton, and got Clinton re-elected. The only reasons Republicans got anything out of it at all was that they compromised significantly (and did not get many of their goals in the end). This was because they had multiple demands to negotiate with, not just one.
Also, the ones that happened before were mainly a united Congress and President of the opposite political alignment, rather than because of a split Congress. The ones that were (mostly under Reagan) tend to have the Democrats in Congress lose on most of their demands.
|
|
|
The longer this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that the republicans are irresponsible. It's strange to me because we know that the US like many countries are just starting to get back on their feet and yet the republicans still feel like it's appropriate to take the country hostage and "damage" it to get their way.
Sure, there is such a thing as balance of powers and it's great, but when possible, it's better not to attack your own country economically to exercise your power... And that's what's happening. It's perfectly normal that opposed political parties would fight but there's a fucking line.
|
On October 03 2013 20:47 Fuzzmosis wrote:It's a depressing event, and I mean both some of these comments and the reality of the situation. For one, you have people who want stuff like the NIH, like Mine Safety Inspections to be eliminted. Those are the people happy with the shutdown, because guess what? NIH funding, Safety Inspections now aren't funded. Neat, isn't it? They get their way in more way than one, because government is bad to them, or to their interests. News LinkThen you get those who politicize the event. Workers in a national park don't care. They don't want to deny you for a political reason WW2 vets. That's your politicians, see Bachmann, who want to try to elicit an emotional response and claim how bad it is that the "Democrats" are doing this. News LinkWhile this isn't the end of the world, it's depressing. You know why? Some people here actually believe that this is the Democrats fault. A belief that has absolutely zero basis in reality. There are people who believe that both sides are bad, and all they are saying when they say that is they don't pay close attention to politics, but gee that sure sounds smart, don't it. The best part is, people want you to be confused and apathetic. They want things to be that complex that you don't care, and if you don't care, or blame both, then you're part of the problem. Your apathy and ignorance enables actions like this, enables and spreads confusion. So, I encourage people to take an interest in this situation heavily. Read comments about the congress, about how Republicans react to Obamacare. Comments like Rand Paul R-Texas or Their "Discussions" About it Prior to the Shutdown. Simply put, if you understand this situation and approve of it, you're approving of smoe rather twisted things to attempt to deny other americans Health care. Except... the exchanges opened. They always were going to. Everyone in congress knew the shutdown wouldn't stop the exchanges.. They Just are so happy to shutdown the government that it doesn't matter that they tried to repeal 40+ times before!
So true... It's hard to see whether people realize that this is Republicans fault and things like "Obama won't negotiate" a complete red herring....
My hope is that they are just ignorant of the facts from hanging around Republican echo chambers, or just oblivious, or at least just wearing political blinders.... It scares me when smart people actually believe this nonsense.
Not really surprised that the vast majority of the country doesn't understand a damn thing about any of this.
Civics class is where too many Americans begin and end their investigation into the inner workings of our democracy and politics in general.
|
On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred?
Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it.
How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there.
That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview.
Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century.
|
Whenever democracy fails / shows its weakness, China laughs at it. That's the saddest part of all this turmoil.
|
On October 03 2013 20:15 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:07 Parnage wrote:On October 03 2013 19:31 b0rt_ wrote:On October 03 2013 18:31 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
Obamacare aka Affordable Healthcare act is a law, it was found constitutional by the supreme court. Not funding it is against the law. The time for discussion about what it should be is over. They already had lots of chances to change it and they didn't. You can't just shut down the government cause you're unhappy you lost. This is causing people to become jobless while the people who shut down the government still get paid.
If I don't want to pay taxes on something am I allowed to do that? Who holds the government responsible for its actions... Exactly, where does this end? If the GOP get power next election (I hope for the world they never do) then should the democrats hold them to ransom for whatever they like? It's law. Hey, as we know once it's the law you can never change things, and the courts have always been correct on every issue. Just read up on that Dred Scott fellow. Saying something is the law doesn't mean it's right. Not that I am implying the Act is wrong or right I really don't care at this point. The ramifications or lack thereof will be proven down the line. The government has done this before, it'll most likely do this again it happens when the sides don't want to work together. The funny bit is watching all the news sources point to things like Parks being closed as big issues all of a sudden while the National Park's are literally falling apart due to being ignored otherwise. Besides I don't remember seeing many people except "fringes" complaining about the Senate never signing off on a Budget for what? 3 years now? I do find politics much more amusing thanks to this, it's neat watching history play out before you. The issue isn't that laws can change. The issue is that congress is trying to change the law. That is up to the supreme court, checks and balances. You can't just say, "i'm better than the person who exists to keep me in balance."
If congress can pass a law, congress can make changes to the law including unpassing it. That is fact and not disputable. The legislature is responsible for changing and making laws, not the judiciary.
|
On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century.
Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest.
This is true for EU countries too BTW.
|
On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW.
Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway.
|
On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway.
You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way).
I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State.
I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation.
|
On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation.
I don't think MP is the right word, given that I assume you're referring to the American political party. We don't have any members of parliament at all; we have congressmen.
|
On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation.
It's a thing in the US, I think, where a lot of cocky old rich guys look down at public education because their $400,000 ivy league degree paid for by their parents is a source of pride for them.
On October 03 2013 22:30 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. I don't think MP is the right word, given that I assume you're referring to the American political party. We don't have any members of parliament at all; we have congressmen.
Congress is your parliament and the congressmen are technically members of parliament  . While perhaps not technically correct, it's still at least kind of correct 
|
On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century.
Yes, because spending less absolutely means going back to the 1900's lifestyle. Which of us is making a straw man argument?
And yes again, the military is something the federal government is actually entitled to spend money on within the limitations given. Anything other than the stuff specifically stated in the Constitution should be done away with, OR go through the amendment process and add it to the document like they did with Prohibition. That is the way it's supposed to be done, as retarded as Prohibition was, it was the absolute legal way to do it. I wouldn't like it, but if Obamacare passed the amendment process, I'd live with it. To use a bastardization of a clause, is not the intent of the document as a whole.
Here is the document, it will take you maybe 20 minutes to read it. It's written so someone with probably a 6th grade education today can read it.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
For example, let's look at Article 8
Those are the powers of the federal government. Period. Anything more than that without amending the Constitution is simply not within the scope of the powers given by the founding documents. So even by a strict reading of it, you could defund the standing army. The navy is exempt.
The amendments:
Look at how we elect senators now vs when the document was written. There is an amendment to change it.
How many times someone could be re-elected was never specified. An amendment closed that loophole.
Slavery wasn't specifically addressed, an amendment made it illegal.
That is how it is supposed to be done, can we at least agree to the mechanics of how to change our government? It was never supposed to be a vocal majority doing anything no matter what the cause of the day is. I'd say the same to people who want English to be our 'official' language. No regulation, no law, no executive order, but a freaking amendment. We have gotten lazy and want things done right now. Making snap decisions never works out well. Taking time and doing things right works more often than not. With only one amendment being repealed, I'd say the process works. One 'mistake' in over 250 years?
|
On October 03 2013 22:30 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. I don't think MP is the right word, given that I assume you're referring to the American political party. We don't have any members of parliament at all; we have congressmen.
And the Congress is your ... ?
|
On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway.
If we start to think of large segments of society as 'plebs', people we have nothing in common with we're fucked.
The problem with embracing self serving corruption is that it stops you from forming wide alliances. How are you going to stand up against well organized, well connected and wealthy interest groups if you are unwilling to consider anyone else's interest but your own?
|
On October 03 2013 22:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. It's a thing in the US, I think, where a lot of cocky old rich guys look down at public education because their $400,000 ivy league degree paid for by their parents is a source of pride for them. Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:30 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. I don't think MP is the right word, given that I assume you're referring to the American political party. We don't have any members of parliament at all; we have congressmen. Congress is your parliament and the congressmen are technically members of parliament . While perhaps not technically correct, it's still at least kind of correct
Precise terminology is fairly important, which is why I'm a stickler for these kinds of things.
The US has a longstanding issue with education between the elitism you stated and the other side of the coin, which is the culture of poverty which rejects education as being uppity. The end result is that even though there is a sizable middle class which values education (albeit overwhelmingly for the sake of profit, rather than viewing knowledge and hence the true as an intrinsic good), there isn't much support for education as a public good. Then again, the concept of public goods isn't very well-known in American culture in the first place, so...
On October 03 2013 22:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:30 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. I don't think MP is the right word, given that I assume you're referring to the American political party. We don't have any members of parliament at all; we have congressmen. And the Congress is your ... ?
It's our Congress. That's the name for it. You can say that it's technically a parliament, and you would be significantly wrong, because the relationship between each individual state and our federal government is a bit different than in other countries. I don't believe you get arguments about States' Rights in most democratic republics.
|
There's a lot of stuff in Article 1 on the powers and responsibilities of congress, too.
I don't think it requires a Constitutional amendment to enact "Obamacare" (which is a stupid name, by the way - I wish they'd stop using it). All it takes right now, is a budget to be approved. It has been subjected to everything else and passed. The Republicans (not all of them) are just being dicks, and their ability to stonewall government to this extent is a joke.
|
On October 03 2013 22:45 dUTtrOACh wrote:
There's a lot of stuff in Article 1 on the powers and responsibilities of congress, too.
I don't think it requires a Constitutional amendment to enact "Obamacare" (which is a stupid name, by the way - I wish they'd stop using it). All it takes right now, is a budget to be approved. It has been subjected to everything else and passed. The Republicans (not all of them) are just being dicks, and their ability to stonewall government to this extent is a joke.
Call it ACA. That's its name.
|
On October 03 2013 22:41 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. If we start to think of large segments of society as 'plebs', people we have nothing in common with we're fucked. The problem with embracing self serving corruption is that it stops you from forming wide alliances. How are you going to stand up against well organized, well connected and wealthy interest groups if you are unwilling to consider anyone else's interest but your own?
Thing is, if you put up his way then you just stop believing in democracy at all.
This ultra-liberal thought has an extraordinarily restricted and individualistic notion of interest. It sees your interest as how much money you get and that's basically it.
As if one could not support unemployment benefit without being unemployed, just because he prefers living in a society that gives a safety net to people who lose their job, as if one could not care for the education of the children of his country even if he has no children, etc etc etc...
But hey, someone sadly influential said "there is no such thing as society", which, if it was true would make humanity worth not much better than wolves and rascals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
