|
On October 03 2013 19:31 b0rt_ wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.]
|
On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.]
God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken.
|
On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken.
LOL I was thinking the same thing xD
|
On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.]
Except that it factually just isn't normal. That might be surprising in some ways because the strategic logic you give isn't insane, but this just hasn't been done in the past.
Imagine two people are in a relationship. One wants to go to a baseball game one night, and the other wants to go to a play. They could have a fight over it. They could negotiate - maybe they'll go to a baseball game the next week instead. But if one of them says "go to the game or I'll break up with you" that instantly shuts down the conversation. Someone willing to make that sort of threat over this type of issue is being unreasonable. Furthermore, the other person knows perfectly well that that can't be an acceptable way to work out problems. Such a relationship would be completely dysfunctional. So if there's any hope of making the relationship functional in the future, the person in question cannot give into that demand. That is the situation here. The dynamic that would be created by this kind of threat working is more harmful to the country than the current shutdown. Obama has been forced into a position where he must, to avoid the precedent, refuse to make concessions. (And the fact that this is true is exactly the reason why this strategy, while it seems logical at first, is actually a bad idea.)
|
On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed.
edit: To the above^ Yes, it is normal. The only modern president to avoid shut downs was the last Bush. There were seven shut downs under reagan and five under carter, for crying out loud.
|
On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed.
Up through the 1970s, "shutdown" meant a very different thing. All federal employees just kept going to work. When the deal was reached, they would always been sent all the back pay as if they were working. This was a horrible way to run the country, so they changed the rules and made it so that employees who weren't allocated pay weren't allowed to work and just assume they'd get paid later. That made shutdowns into a very big deal, and since that change has been made the only time government closed was under Clinton, and it was certainly a very big deal then. (And it wasn't because of random unrelated issues that one side decided to demand in exchange for a budget - it was an actual disagreement over what the budget is that should get passed.)
|
|
|
On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed.
I advise you to buy a dictionary; you have no clue what the word catastrophe means. I mean are you really that high up on your ivory tower?
"Guess what guys it's government shutdown month, glad I don't have a government job haha!"
The Water Cooler Speeches , Dazed Spy, 2014
|
|
|
The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference.
Here is Stan Collender's explanation:
"You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons:
1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now.
2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments.
3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others
|
On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others
1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm.
2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long.
|
On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed. edit: To the above^ Yes, it is normal. The only modern president to avoid shut downs was the last Bush. There were seven shut downs under reagan and five under carter, for crying out loud.
Most people have quite reasonable understanding of US political system. And simply put, it is terrible. No special circumstances, no 'American exceptionalism' , no other nonsense can hide the fact that the system is just outdated and not working in current reality. It might have been ok in 1700s, it is not now.
Federal government was designed to be ineffectual in anything other than war and even there it was originally not so good. Times change, in today's world federal government has actually big impact on everything, yet due to some historical worship of the past it remained theoretically more-or-less unchanged. Thus haphazard patches were made to the system to keep it functioning in changed times without properly redesigning it. Thus you are in a mess you are.
Every sane system has checks in place that in such a circumstance of complete deadlock it will just disband the whole legislative and in consequence executive branch and call immediate new elections. Why, because current legislative and executive body showed themselves as clearly incapable of governing. Of course that requires to get rid off the ridiculous drama of 1-year long elections, which is only good. I understand why there is no such possibility in US system. Founders were more afraid of despots than of ineffectual and deadlocked government and so preventing anyone having ability to disband legislature seemed like a good idea. Again, times change and there are ways to prevent despotic putches and still keep option of disbanding legislature (and executive).
This is not unique to US and seems to be inertia of systems that survived for a long time or have some emotional entanglement. It is hard to redesign systems that are in place and many people (especially the powerful ones) depend on it to keep their wealth and power. At least something good comes out from turbulent history, countries are forced to design their systems anew and can make them suit modern realities and learn from mistakes of other countries. If it is worth it, I do not know. Would be better if countries could redesign their political systems based on pragmatic need and not being forced to it by wars and revolutions or just suffer old ineffectual system for decades.
EDIT: I should add that ability to disband legislature might not be enough or necessary. There are other possibilities, you can increase the threshold for deadlocks by making it harder for minority to block stuff or you can tie executive to legislature similar to parliamentary systems or you can get rid off the system that promotes extreme political views and punishes being moderate.
The last thing can be achieved in many ways, either move to proportional system or get rid of gerrymandering or ... In current situation especially republicans have to act extreme just to win their primaries and there is no balancing that would normally occur by later having to fight in general elections against democrats as due to gerrymandering voting areas are too safe for one party or another.
|
On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed. edit: To the above^ Yes, it is normal. The only modern president to avoid shut downs was the last Bush. There were seven shut downs under reagan and five under carter, for crying out loud.
Lets not turn this debate into a bunch of ad hominem statements.
This goes for everyone attacking people instead of providing information. Keeping things neutrals leads to more intelligent thought and discussion. The moment we start getting emotional is when it turns into an argument and that takes a lot of effort to keep things flowing debate wise.
|
On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long.
You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result.
|
On October 04 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed. edit: To the above^ Yes, it is normal. The only modern president to avoid shut downs was the last Bush. There were seven shut downs under reagan and five under carter, for crying out loud. Most people have quite reasonable understanding of US political system. And simply put, it is terrible. No special circumstances, no 'American exceptionalism' , no other nonsense can hide the fact that the system is just outdated and not working in current reality. It might have been ok in 1700s, it is not now. Federal government was designed to be ineffectual in anything other than war and even there it was originally not so good. Times change, in today's world federal government has actually big impact on everything, yet due to some historical worship of the past it remained theoretically more-or-less unchanged. Thus haphazard patches were made to the system to keep it functioning in changed times without properly redesigning it. Thus you are in a mess you are. Every sane system has checks in place that in such a circumstance of complete deadlock it will just disband the whole legislative and in consequence executive branch and call immediate new elections. Why, because current legislative and executive body showed themselves as clearly incapable of governing. Of course that requires to get rid off the ridiculous drama of 1-year long elections, which is only good. I understand why there is no such possibility in US system. Founders were more afraid of despots than of ineffectual and deadlocked government and so preventing anyone having ability to disband legislature seemed like a good idea. Again, times change and there are ways to prevent despotic putches and still keep option of disbanding legislature (and executive). This is not unique to US and seems to be inertia of systems that survived for a long time or have some emotional entanglement. It is hard to redesign systems that are in place and many people (especially the powerful ones) depend on it to keep their wealth and power. At least something good comes out from turbulent history, countries are forced to design their systems anew and can make them suit modern realities and learn from mistakes of other countries. If it is worth it, I do not know. Would be better if countries could redesign their political systems based on pragmatic need and not being forced to it by wars and revolutions or just suffer old ineffectual system for decades.
I think that the structure of the U.s. Government would be the best form of government if the population of the u.s. was simply more educated and informed in general. If everyone actually found out exactly what their representative stood for and what they will do, if they were well informed on the issues and how for example the ACA works. However in reality I dont except it to work with the simple ignorance/naiveness that the u.s. population has.
|
On October 04 2013 05:07 Anesthetic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed. edit: To the above^ Yes, it is normal. The only modern president to avoid shut downs was the last Bush. There were seven shut downs under reagan and five under carter, for crying out loud. Most people have quite reasonable understanding of US political system. And simply put, it is terrible. No special circumstances, no 'American exceptionalism' , no other nonsense can hide the fact that the system is just outdated and not working in current reality. It might have been ok in 1700s, it is not now. Federal government was designed to be ineffectual in anything other than war and even there it was originally not so good. Times change, in today's world federal government has actually big impact on everything, yet due to some historical worship of the past it remained theoretically more-or-less unchanged. Thus haphazard patches were made to the system to keep it functioning in changed times without properly redesigning it. Thus you are in a mess you are. Every sane system has checks in place that in such a circumstance of complete deadlock it will just disband the whole legislative and in consequence executive branch and call immediate new elections. Why, because current legislative and executive body showed themselves as clearly incapable of governing. Of course that requires to get rid off the ridiculous drama of 1-year long elections, which is only good. I understand why there is no such possibility in US system. Founders were more afraid of despots than of ineffectual and deadlocked government and so preventing anyone having ability to disband legislature seemed like a good idea. Again, times change and there are ways to prevent despotic putches and still keep option of disbanding legislature (and executive). This is not unique to US and seems to be inertia of systems that survived for a long time or have some emotional entanglement. It is hard to redesign systems that are in place and many people (especially the powerful ones) depend on it to keep their wealth and power. At least something good comes out from turbulent history, countries are forced to design their systems anew and can make them suit modern realities and learn from mistakes of other countries. If it is worth it, I do not know. Would be better if countries could redesign their political systems based on pragmatic need and not being forced to it by wars and revolutions or just suffer old ineffectual system for decades. I think that the structure of the U.s. Government would be the best form of government if the population of the u.s. was simply more educated and informed in general. If everyone actually found out exactly what their representative stood for and what they will do, if they were well informed on the issues and how for example the ACA works. However in reality I dont except it to work with the simple ignorance/naiveness that the u.s. population has.
This is very true, especially during presidential elections. Sure a lot of people might know the facts about the president but then they go in and vote "all demo/rep" so certain people get into the senate/house when there are better choices. Voting with your party simply because it is your party is usually what ends up causing some situations down the line. Two party systems are like that though. Wish there was a 3rd party that was taken seriously by the other two.
|
On October 04 2013 05:07 Anesthetic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed. edit: To the above^ Yes, it is normal. The only modern president to avoid shut downs was the last Bush. There were seven shut downs under reagan and five under carter, for crying out loud. Most people have quite reasonable understanding of US political system. And simply put, it is terrible. No special circumstances, no 'American exceptionalism' , no other nonsense can hide the fact that the system is just outdated and not working in current reality. It might have been ok in 1700s, it is not now. Federal government was designed to be ineffectual in anything other than war and even there it was originally not so good. Times change, in today's world federal government has actually big impact on everything, yet due to some historical worship of the past it remained theoretically more-or-less unchanged. Thus haphazard patches were made to the system to keep it functioning in changed times without properly redesigning it. Thus you are in a mess you are. Every sane system has checks in place that in such a circumstance of complete deadlock it will just disband the whole legislative and in consequence executive branch and call immediate new elections. Why, because current legislative and executive body showed themselves as clearly incapable of governing. Of course that requires to get rid off the ridiculous drama of 1-year long elections, which is only good. I understand why there is no such possibility in US system. Founders were more afraid of despots than of ineffectual and deadlocked government and so preventing anyone having ability to disband legislature seemed like a good idea. Again, times change and there are ways to prevent despotic putches and still keep option of disbanding legislature (and executive). This is not unique to US and seems to be inertia of systems that survived for a long time or have some emotional entanglement. It is hard to redesign systems that are in place and many people (especially the powerful ones) depend on it to keep their wealth and power. At least something good comes out from turbulent history, countries are forced to design their systems anew and can make them suit modern realities and learn from mistakes of other countries. If it is worth it, I do not know. Would be better if countries could redesign their political systems based on pragmatic need and not being forced to it by wars and revolutions or just suffer old ineffectual system for decades. I think that the structure of the U.s. Government would be the best form of government if the population of the u.s. was simply more educated and informed in general. If everyone actually found out exactly what their representative stood for and what they will do, if they were well informed on the issues and how for example the ACA works. However in reality I dont except it to work with the simple ignorance/naiveness that the u.s. population has.
It would still not be best form of government as it suffers from many and many other vices that can be reasonably fixed. But IF people were reasonable and well informed then nearly every political system would work well enough  , unfortunately that is somewhat of an utopia.
|
On October 04 2013 05:10 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 05:07 Anesthetic wrote:On October 04 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On October 04 2013 04:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 04:07 Dazed_Spy 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. Yes, they should. And historically thats what they'll do. THIS IS NORMAL. We think its abnormal because we grew up in an abnormal period of american politics where this didnt occur. And the media is bullshitting. Of course Democrats should shut down the Government if Republicans arent willing to work with them, and vice versa. This is the point of the American system. Equal branches with divisions of power. Its meant to create deadlock when extreme proposals are brought up [like obamacare] or force compromise [which democrats are not willing to, hence the shut down.] God i hope my sarcasm meter is broken. It's not, perhaps you should simply accept that you have exactly zero functional understanding of American constitutional order. We've had almost 20 shut downs of Government since the late 1970's, one time for as trivial a reason as Democrats heading to a Barbecue, which didnt give them time to pass a budget. This isnt a catastrophe, or anything meaningful. Its political maneuvering to put pressure on the other side to negotiate, a completely common affair and half the damn time point of how America's political system was designed. edit: To the above^ Yes, it is normal. The only modern president to avoid shut downs was the last Bush. There were seven shut downs under reagan and five under carter, for crying out loud. Most people have quite reasonable understanding of US political system. And simply put, it is terrible. No special circumstances, no 'American exceptionalism' , no other nonsense can hide the fact that the system is just outdated and not working in current reality. It might have been ok in 1700s, it is not now. Federal government was designed to be ineffectual in anything other than war and even there it was originally not so good. Times change, in today's world federal government has actually big impact on everything, yet due to some historical worship of the past it remained theoretically more-or-less unchanged. Thus haphazard patches were made to the system to keep it functioning in changed times without properly redesigning it. Thus you are in a mess you are. Every sane system has checks in place that in such a circumstance of complete deadlock it will just disband the whole legislative and in consequence executive branch and call immediate new elections. Why, because current legislative and executive body showed themselves as clearly incapable of governing. Of course that requires to get rid off the ridiculous drama of 1-year long elections, which is only good. I understand why there is no such possibility in US system. Founders were more afraid of despots than of ineffectual and deadlocked government and so preventing anyone having ability to disband legislature seemed like a good idea. Again, times change and there are ways to prevent despotic putches and still keep option of disbanding legislature (and executive). This is not unique to US and seems to be inertia of systems that survived for a long time or have some emotional entanglement. It is hard to redesign systems that are in place and many people (especially the powerful ones) depend on it to keep their wealth and power. At least something good comes out from turbulent history, countries are forced to design their systems anew and can make them suit modern realities and learn from mistakes of other countries. If it is worth it, I do not know. Would be better if countries could redesign their political systems based on pragmatic need and not being forced to it by wars and revolutions or just suffer old ineffectual system for decades. I think that the structure of the U.s. Government would be the best form of government if the population of the u.s. was simply more educated and informed in general. If everyone actually found out exactly what their representative stood for and what they will do, if they were well informed on the issues and how for example the ACA works. However in reality I dont except it to work with the simple ignorance/naiveness that the u.s. population has. This is very true, especially during presidential elections. Sure a lot of people might know the facts about the president but then they go in and vote "all demo/rep" so certain people get into the senate/house when there are better choices. Voting with your party simply because it is your party is usually what ends up causing some situations down the line. Two party systems are like that though. Wish there was a 3rd party that was taken seriously by the other two.
First past the post causes a 2 party system which causes party voting (since there is no other option) which causes democratic problems.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dazed spy is like the guy who really did go to canada when obama won.
|
On October 04 2013 05:19 oneofthem wrote:
dazed spy is like the guy who really did go to canada when obama won.
Yeah, what's up with that? The country won't take itself back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
