|
On October 04 2013 17:00 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:50 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:48 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:44 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. The point is that paying for all those things and generally having a lot of stuff is a poor substitute for good health and peace of mind, two things that poor workplace conditions can deprive you of. I would also like to support GreenHorizon's point that workers have suffered over the past 50 years: productivity has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, but wages have stagnated. Finally, there's a legitimate debate to be had about the means by which the republican party has gone about their battle against the ACA, a debate that is being ignored. Aren't there legitimate political channels for the repeal or modification of the ACA? Why must it be stopped now? After all if it is economically destructive over the short to medium term that is something that can be tracked, analyzed, and subsequent correcting decisions can be made. Ah yes, I remember my argument that we should have poor workplace conditions. It was on page.... hmm... where was that post... Hmm, I guess I can't find it. Where the fuck did that come from ? We were discussing the "humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer," something I file under the (admittedly broad) term of workplace conditions. Argue semantics if you will, the point remains. Obviously I'm not talking about sweatshops and coal mines. Also, Kaitlin you are becoming really quite acerbic in your responses.... you might find people more inclined to agree with you if you showed a little mutual respect. Well, this is a budget discussion. It's in the government shutdown thread. The government is shutdown because Repubs would like to defund the ACA. Part of the reason Repubs want to do this is the financial impact on businesses. It imposes additional costs on employers, some of them are unable to take on the additional costs. Injecting utopianesque, everybody should be happy and deserves legally mandated minimum levels of dignity from their employers, ideas is a complete load of crap. If an employer can't afford the extra costs, they may have to close their doors, and then employees have no job to complain about working conditions. I'm not terribly worried about people agreeing or disagreeing with me being dependent upon tone. If they agree with my points, they agree that some of these issues I'm responding to are pretty silly. If you're someone who brings up worker dignity in a discussion about employers being able to afford government mandated programs, then you're simply not going to understand my point anyways.
Worker dignity is full of debates about the cost of government mandates impacting employers bottom lines. A couple that come to mind are mine safety and health, and government mandates on ventilation and many other things in restaurants.
everybody...deserves legally mandated minimum levels of dignity from their employers, ideas is a complete load of crap.
But yeah if buying a adequately working ventilation system puts a restaurant out of business we should probably just let them continue to put their employees and customers in danger, instead of changing their business practices to make it happen or closing it's doors right?....
It's not that we don't understand your point it's just cold and inhumane not the type of country many people want to live in.
I could see a similar argument being made in China. "We can't change your insanely unhealthy, unsafe and inhumane working conditions because it would cost too much".... Because we all know how much companies like FoxConn are struggling to survive...
Damnit I said I'd move on....
|
On October 04 2013 17:00 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:50 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:48 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:44 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. The point is that paying for all those things and generally having a lot of stuff is a poor substitute for good health and peace of mind, two things that poor workplace conditions can deprive you of. I would also like to support GreenHorizon's point that workers have suffered over the past 50 years: productivity has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, but wages have stagnated. Finally, there's a legitimate debate to be had about the means by which the republican party has gone about their battle against the ACA, a debate that is being ignored. Aren't there legitimate political channels for the repeal or modification of the ACA? Why must it be stopped now? After all if it is economically destructive over the short to medium term that is something that can be tracked, analyzed, and subsequent correcting decisions can be made. Ah yes, I remember my argument that we should have poor workplace conditions. It was on page.... hmm... where was that post... Hmm, I guess I can't find it. Where the fuck did that come from ? We were discussing the "humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer," something I file under the (admittedly broad) term of workplace conditions. Argue semantics if you will, the point remains. Obviously I'm not talking about sweatshops and coal mines. Also, Kaitlin you are becoming really quite acerbic in your responses.... you might find people more inclined to agree with you if you showed a little mutual respect. Well, this is a budget discussion. It's in the government shutdown thread. The government is shutdown because Repubs would like to defund the ACA. Part of the reason Repubs want to do this is the financial impact on businesses. It imposes additional costs on employers, some of them are unable to take on the additional costs. Injecting utopianesque, everybody should be happy and deserves legally mandated minimum levels of dignity from their employers, ideas is a complete load of crap. If an employer can't afford the extra costs, they may have to close their doors, and then employees have no job to complain about working conditions.
Surely there is a middle ground where we don't drive everyone out of business and ensure the well-being of our workers.... I think you're judging me for being far more ideological than I actually am. I'm not suggesting that we have "legally mandated happiness and dignity for all," I'm just saying that we can help everyone have an opportunity at that happiness by ensuring that they are not exploited at the workplace. Believe it or not, worker are often exploited in today's economy, e.g. the mcdonalds suggested budget that left no room for paying for heat. The populace's well-being is not "pretty silly."
If you're someone who brings up worker dignity in a discussion about employers being able to afford government mandated programs, then you're simply not going to understand my point anyways.
The notion that because I support what I outlined above somehow makes me intellectually unable to "understand your point" is, however, "pretty silly". Treating people on the other side of the ideological divide like idiots is NOT ok. Believe it or not, we too have the best interests of the country at heart and are trying to get to them using what we (and many, many other people) believe are the best means to do so.
It's this "my way or the highway" intellectual elitism that's really hurting our country. Try to understand that the best path forward for BOTH parties is accepting that the other side is a legitimate member in the debate.
|
On October 04 2013 17:22 Parsistamon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 17:00 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:50 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:48 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:44 Parsistamon wrote:On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. The point is that paying for all those things and generally having a lot of stuff is a poor substitute for good health and peace of mind, two things that poor workplace conditions can deprive you of. I would also like to support GreenHorizon's point that workers have suffered over the past 50 years: productivity has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, but wages have stagnated. Finally, there's a legitimate debate to be had about the means by which the republican party has gone about their battle against the ACA, a debate that is being ignored. Aren't there legitimate political channels for the repeal or modification of the ACA? Why must it be stopped now? After all if it is economically destructive over the short to medium term that is something that can be tracked, analyzed, and subsequent correcting decisions can be made. Ah yes, I remember my argument that we should have poor workplace conditions. It was on page.... hmm... where was that post... Hmm, I guess I can't find it. Where the fuck did that come from ? We were discussing the "humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer," something I file under the (admittedly broad) term of workplace conditions. Argue semantics if you will, the point remains. Obviously I'm not talking about sweatshops and coal mines. Also, Kaitlin you are becoming really quite acerbic in your responses.... you might find people more inclined to agree with you if you showed a little mutual respect. Well, this is a budget discussion. It's in the government shutdown thread. The government is shutdown because Repubs would like to defund the ACA. Part of the reason Repubs want to do this is the financial impact on businesses. It imposes additional costs on employers, some of them are unable to take on the additional costs. Injecting utopianesque, everybody should be happy and deserves legally mandated minimum levels of dignity from their employers, ideas is a complete load of crap. If an employer can't afford the extra costs, they may have to close their doors, and then employees have no job to complain about working conditions. Surely there is a middle ground where we don't drive everyone out of business and ensure the well-being of our workers.... I think you're judging me for being far more ideological than I actually am. I'm not suggesting that we have "legally mandated happiness and dignity for all," I'm just saying that we can help everyone have an opportunity at that happiness by ensuring that they are not exploited at the workplace. Believe it or not, worker are often exploited in today's economy, e.g. the mcdonalds suggested budget that left no room for paying for heat. The populace's well-being is not "pretty silly." Show nested quote +If you're someone who brings up worker dignity in a discussion about employers being able to afford government mandated programs, then you're simply not going to understand my point anyways. The notion that because I support what I outlined above somehow makes me intellectually unable to "understand your point" is, however, "pretty silly". Treating people on the other side of the ideological divide like idiots is NOT ok. Believe it or not, we too have the best interests of the country at heart and are trying to get to them using what we (and many, many other people) believe are the best means to do so. It's this "my way or the highway" intellectual elitism that's really hurting our country. Try to understand that the best path forward for BOTH parties is accepting that the other side is a legitimate member in the debate.
I apparently said "understand" when it should have been more like "agree with". It wasn't intended as an intellectual attack.
I'm too tired to respond to the rest of these couple of posts tonight. Now I'm really out for the night. I just wanted to clarify that one point.
|
On October 04 2013 17:17 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 16:44 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 16:37 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
3) There are several studies that show that employers getting more for less, especially since the recession, is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you. No business owner faced with a financial decision gives a flying fuck about your or any other studies. The fact that you continue to refer to "studies" as if they are authoritative to ANY actual business facing difficult decisions just screams you have no real world experience or knowledge about which you post. On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all. Real world experience trumps bullshit "research" every day. Did the all-important Mr. Zandi neglect to ask real people in his research ? Did it ever occur to you that plenty of "research" is politically motivated to engineer support for a pre-determined position ? Why do I even bother responding to your posts. ROFL you're right why do you bother... "Facts contradict my argument so screw those facts".... Typical... Seems like you missed 2) though? I left out 2 because you made it clear you were talking about the individual mandate and I've already said I had no idea what relevance you were trying to make in terms of your supply and demand analysis. I had been discussing employers dropping their employee hours below 30 in order to avoid falling under the employER mandate. If you can make sense of your supply and demand argument, have at it. I didn't understand your thought process, told you so, and when you didn't clarify, I just let it die. It was in correlation to my proposed alternative to the structuring of the employer mandate and your counter-argument of it. You essentially said it wouldn't reduce the pressure to switch significant amounts of a workforce from full-time to part-time. I was saying if suddenly employees who would choose not to get insurance were more desirable (increase in demand[which I disagree would happen anyway but if it did...]) employers would need to pay them more (increase in cost) to get them to work for them vs another employer as they are in limited supply. And it would likely be an ever shrinking pool either way. Ok, I think I understand the track we're on. Do you really think we're anywhere near an economic condition where there is a limited supply of low-skilled labor ? I don't. The unemployment rate among those under 26 is astronomical. These are all people who a) would have parental insurance, or b) would just pay the penalty, which can't exceed 1% of their income, no matter how much it increases year to year. edit: I'm out for the night...
KAITLIN!!!! sorry that is just to get your attention if you skim past this later.
Not a shortage of low-skill labor although that's a problem I think we could both endorse reaching.
Specifically you said that (based on the idea I outlined) that employers would be encouraged to seek employees that chose not to get insurance. Given the nature of the individual penalty as I mentioned (cap goes up to 2.5% in 2 years) that pool would become significantly smaller over time.
Provided that it still was a problem (which I still doubt) there are potential remedies not currently in the law.
|
On October 04 2013 15:55 dabom88 wrote:
What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at.
Yeah what do I mean, good question really ^^
I guess I am partly joking and partly not. I do think that the Tea party movement is the most dangerous groups of extremist on the planet right now. The fact that a group of people I think is actually flat out delusional and which decisions have nothing to do with reality is greatly influencing the greatest economic and military power in the world is highly alarming for the rest of mankind.
Thus for the general well being of the planet I think it would be beneficial if they were at least detained somewhere to ensure they influence nothing of importance anywhere. Now I know this is not a correct decision from a democratic or moral angle, but from a strict utilitarianism point of view (the greatest good for the least cost) I think it would be the right thing to do.
The core of the problem is that the US people voted in people that told them about a fairy tale world and they liked it since they realized that the current US system was fucked up.
So what happens when you do actions of great consequence, i.e voting for the tea party, without thinking about the long term consequence you end up with hard dilemmas. Either you have to something that morally is incorrect, i.e. detain democratically elected tea party politics, or you have to accept the current situation that they might very well crash the US/world economy.
Now if I consider the welfare of everyone of the planet outside of US, ~6.5 billion people, that might get affected by this it does not seem like such a hard choice anymore. Hell if we can bomb and kill millions of civilians around the world which have nothing to do with the conflicts in the first place, detain a couple of people that continually take active actions that are threatening the welfare of people all over earth and suddenly it feels like an easy option.
Not that it would ever happen, but if it did I would not mind. Think it is unfair that my grandmothers livelihood is in jeopardy because the US politics is an utter joke.
|
On October 04 2013 18:10 4ZakeN87 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 dabom88 wrote:
What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at. Now if I consider the welfare of everyone of the planet outside of US, ~6.5 billion people, that might get affected by this it does not seem like such a hard choice anymore. Hell if we can bomb and kill millions of civilians around the world which have nothing to do with the conflicts in the first place, detain a couple of people that continually take active actions that are threatening the welfare of people all over earth and suddenly it feels like an easy option. Not that it would ever happen, but if it did I would not mind. Think it is unfair that my grandmothers livelihood is in jeopardy because the US politics is an utter joke.
***************Breaking News******************
Boehner Won't Let Nation Default
"House Speaker John Boehner is telling fellow Republicans he won't allow the United States to default on its debt — even if it takes Democratic votes to do so."
"Boehner has been meeting with Republicans privately as he and other GOP leaders try to come up with a plan to end the partial government shutdown and raise the debt limit"
Looks like the Congressional Chaplain's prayer worked in one way or another " “Have mercy upon us, oh God, and save us from the madness,”...“Deliver us from the hypocrisy of attempting to sound reasonable while being unreasonable,”
Looks like your grandmother should be safe from US default for at least a bit longer.
Source
Strange... Still unreported by Fox News.... Maybe they are figuring out how they want to spin it? Whether it's a good choice by Boehner or bad?
BTW I'm Calling the Dailyshow joke picture thing will be "Breaking Boehner" (Breaking Bad)
|
Hmm not sure that promises annything good.
After reading the article in the link it look likes boehner wants to include a few other things in a deal about the debt ceiling. Wont be suprised if thoose things are unacceptable for the democrats.
Democrats want an unconditional raise of the debt ceiling.
|
On October 04 2013 17:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:44 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 16:26 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 16:23 Poffel wrote:On October 04 2013 15:07 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
Ok, I'll start in reverse. The bolded part has no place in the discussion. We're discussing bottom line costs and for a small business, these are the difference between continuing to provide employment or closing your doors. It's a financial decision, keep the emotional, humanitarian, dignity arguments for your local charity. Dignity and human security have a place in every discussion on (political) economy. Money is not the goal. It's a means to an end. Yeah, pay your taxes, electric bill and rent with dignity. Wake up or go to the Anime thread. What a useful reply... and I'm not even talking about you sending me to maybe the one thread on TL that's more creepy than this one. Frankly, I can't even tell if you're arguing with me or against me - so, to keep it brief, I wholeheartedly agree: every employee being able to afford a roof over the head (preferably one with heating, running water, and light that doesn't come from candles) would be one of the things I was implying when I said that human security is important. Yeah, I'm just seeing this post now. In reading your post, I think you might be more thinking of the macro level where I've been engaged in the micro. Sure, overall, dignity is important. However, the focus of my recent posts has been on employers having additional expenses mandated to them, and the very real possibility that many businesses will not be able to take on those additional costs, and close their doors. In such cases, the macro importance of worker dignity has to take a backseat to the micro focus of the employer going out of business and the employees being out of a job entirely. If a business is on the brink of closing its doors, it's not really the time for workers to be pushing for more worker rights and dignity issues. It's entirely possible we don't disagree, but I've been responding to multiple people and I think you got in the mix.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess you could say that I've been emphasizing the broader picture... and I get that there are considerable problems to solve when, let's put it broadly, ancillary labor costs are rising. Admittedly, though, I think that the picture you're drawing is at least partially tendentious insofar as you're painting a too favorable picture of the employer... I'll give you that the cases you're sketching here do exist (business on the brink of closing), but the notion that it's therefore "not the right time" to push for employee rights is misleading insofar as it suggests that there could be a better time - supposedly one where no businesses are in financial trouble.
Moreover, the bigger (macro-economic) danger isn't even with businesses on the brink of collapse. It's with large and well-established businesses that can afford to transfer their production to China, their client service to India, and so forth - all regions with both lower ancillary labor costs and (not incidentally!) less worker rights. That's what could actually hurt the economy much more substantially... though, as a narrative it doesn't fly well with the anti-ACA agenda because it doesn't paint the employer as a sympathetic middle-class entrepeneur who falls victim to political malpractice but rather displays the demand for low ancillary labor costs for what it is: the demand for a docile workforce.
In this sense, and now switching to your micro perspective, there is merit to the concern that businesses (especially those of the sympathetic middle-class kind) could run into troubles due to a rise of ancillary labor costs. But if those companies can only stay in business if they forego payments that are required to secure their employee's basic needs, then their questionable 'success' is bought dearly. And in this regard, concerns about the employee's dignity and human security aren't misplaced at all: Safeguarding jobs is usually a good idea, but if the prerequisite for a business to keep going are job conditions that are altogether unreasonable and undignified, then the problem isn't so much the newly increased costs but rather that it's a shitty business.
|
On October 04 2013 20:29 Rassy wrote:
Hmm not sure that promises annything good.
After reading the article in the link it look likes boehner wants to include a few other things in a deal about the debt ceiling. Wont be suprised if thoose things are unacceptable for the democrats.
Democrats want an unconditional raise of the debt ceiling.
I'm sure he does but I think the most important part is "even if it takes democratic votes" Which means he's willing to violate the Hastert 'rule' to get something done which means whatever goes to the floor will likely not make Tea Partiers very happy which is not great but a hell of a lot better than things looked yesterday... Well for most anyway
And man Poffel you nailed what I was thinking in a much more articulate way than I was prepared to explain. It looked like something you could read in a major newspaper right up to "shitty business" hahaha... I agree with a characterization but think you could find a better description ;P
|
Boehner effectively gave away any leverage he had (and it wasn't that much to begin with) in the debt ceiling negotiations. I honestly don't see where the republicans are going with this.
|
On October 05 2013 00:10 Derez wrote:
Boehner effectively gave away any leverage he had (and it wasn't that much to begin with) in the debt ceiling negotiations. I honestly don't see where the republicans are going with this.
Boehner never wanted the shutdown, Republican leadership never wanted it. There all trying to make the best (for themselves not for the country) of a terrible situation they were forced into by the Tea Party,
Which leads me to wonder. Has anyone representing the Tea Party come forward with anything moderately useful/interesting since this whole thing began?
|
On October 04 2013 16:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
3) There are several studies that show that employers getting more for less, especially since the recession, is a relatively indisputable truth. I presumed you'd be aware of them but if you need to see them I could show you. No business owner faced with a financial decision gives a flying fuck about your or any other studies. The fact that you continue to refer to "studies" as if they are authoritative to ANY actual business facing difficult decisions just screams you have no real world experience or knowledge about which you post. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
4) Those posts are by definition anecdotal so that doesn't refute my point or Mr. Zandi's research at all. Real world experience trumps bullshit "research" every day. Did the all-important Mr. Zandi neglect to ask real people in his research ? Did it ever occur to you that plenty of "research" is politically motivated to engineer support for a pre-determined position ? Why do I even bother responding to your posts.
Believe it or not, studies are based on actual data collection and research. Moody's is a fairly non-partisan group, and if they had shitty results they would have gone out of business by now, beauty of the free market and all that.
What this guy did is called a survey, where you ask a large number of people a pretty basic set of questions to get an idea of how the general population is acting as a whole. It lets you see the behavior, but not necessarily the motivations behind said behavior.
What you are suggesting is more of a case study basis, where you go up to people, ask them a detailed set of questions, and use a small sample size to make generalizations about the population as a whole.
Both strategies are equally valid ways of gathering data with their own pros and cons.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 05 2013 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 00:10 Derez wrote:
Boehner effectively gave away any leverage he had (and it whttp://www.teamliquid.net/plus/asn't that much to begin with) in the debt ceiling negotiations. I honestly don't see where the republicans are going with this. Boehner never wanted the shutdown, Republican leadership never wanted it. There all trying to make the best (for themselves not for the country) of a terrible situation they were forced into by the Tea Party, Which leads me to wonder. Has anyone representing the Tea Party come forward with anything moderately useful/interesting since this whole thing began?
Rubio is in hiding, and Ted Cruz has been getting lambasted privately by his fellow GOP senators. The last part is a bit of a comeuppance, since Cruz has been publicly criticizing them for years.
Rubio isn't exactly a Tea Partier, but he was with Cruz in predicting Democrats would switch sides, during that big senate floor rally.
I don't really know what the rest of the suicide caucus can do. I mean, despite that hot mic conversation with McConnell, Rand Paul has backed away from this publicly and you've got Reps like Nunes (R-CA) calling them lemmings.
|
On October 04 2013 18:10 4ZakeN87 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:55 dabom88 wrote:
What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at. Yeah what do I mean, good question really ^^ I guess I am partly joking and partly not. I do think that the Tea party movement is the most dangerous groups of extremist on the planet right now. LOL. They want to cut Government by 2-3%! STAND BACK! THEY'RE CAPABLE OF ANYTHING!
|
United States42754 Posts
On October 05 2013 02:39 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 18:10 4ZakeN87 wrote:On October 04 2013 15:55 dabom88 wrote:
What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at. Yeah what do I mean, good question really ^^ I guess I am partly joking and partly not. I do think that the Tea party movement is the most dangerous groups of extremist on the planet right now. LOL. They want to cut Government by 2-3%! STAND BACK! THEY'RE CAPABLE OF ANYTHING!
You cut his point in half. He said they were more dangerous than others because they wield a greater influence in a more significant place than other groups. I'm not sure if I agree but I definitely agree that ideological political groups have way more potential to do harm to the average person, albeit small amounts of harm to everyone, than terrorist groups who only directly impact a minute fraction of the population.
|
On October 05 2013 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 02:39 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 18:10 4ZakeN87 wrote:On October 04 2013 15:55 dabom88 wrote:
What do you mean have the army "go after" the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party isn't an army for troops to fight, so your comment really makes no sense. What, is the army going to debate the Tea Party to death? That's not what an army is good at. Yeah what do I mean, good question really ^^ I guess I am partly joking and partly not. I do think that the Tea party movement is the most dangerous groups of extremist on the planet right now. LOL. They want to cut Government by 2-3%! STAND BACK! THEY'RE CAPABLE OF ANYTHING! You cut his point in half. He said they were more dangerous than others because they wield a greater influence in a more significant place than other groups. I'm not sure if I agree but I definitely agree that ideological political groups have way more potential to do harm to the average person, albeit small amounts of harm to everyone, than terrorist groups who only directly impact a minute fraction of the population. My taunt still stands as a legitimate point. Some of the tea party [not all] are pushing for very strong confrontation right now. But at the root of the movement, its literally just calling for fractional decreases in the size of Government. We've all become so accustomed to Government size that, apparently quite a few amongst us, delude ourselves into thinking marginal cuts are 'deep' and 'radical'. It's not, and even though this kind of confrontational politics in America is somewhat new, it neither encapsulates the entirity of the tea party or the republican party. And importantly, its not like it came out of no where. Obama passed the biggest reform in American history on a partisan basis and has spent large tracts of his time directly insulting Republicans. A lot of the intransigence is caused not by ideology or some inherent radical philosophy of political confrontation, but its a product of the times. We live in a partisan, angry and divided moment.
To call the tea party 'anarchists' 'terrorists' or any similar pejorative is a rape of the word, is deluded, and to blame them entirely for any impact they may have is naive.
edit: Also an interesting demographic/sociological point: The 'movement' between Republicans going democrat or vise versa has been almost non existent since 2000. Ordinarily theres quite a lot of fluidity from decade to decade, but what we have now is a country more or less stuck in their equal division. How could anyone be surprised that politics eventually be bitter and confrontational, on both ends?
|
Does the US Congress have to agree on a budget annually? Or is it less frequently?
Is this whole shutdown/impasse damaging the popularity of the Republican Party within the US? Or is it likely to have no effect? Are the Republicans sabotaging their own chances of winning the next Presidential Election over this issue, or not? Will the electorate even remember or care in 2016? Do people think this would occur in an Election year?
|
People have very short memories. It's only about being in the news really - you know the saying "The only bad publicity is no publicity", right?
|
On October 05 2013 02:56 revel8 wrote:
Does the US Congress have to agree on a budget annually? Or is it less frequently?
Is this whole shutdown/impasse damaging the popularity of the Republican Party within the US? Or is it likely to have no effect? Are the Republicans sabotaging their own chances of winning the next Presidential Election over this issue, or not? Will the electorate even remember or care in 2016? Do people think this would occur in an Election year?
The US Congress does on paper at least have to agree on a budget annually, though in practice they frequently can't agree and pass "continuing resolutions" that extend current spending for a couple months while they keep trying to come to an agreement. The issue here is that the Republicans are refusing to pass that, even when the Democrats have already met their demands as to the actual levels of spending it would include.
As to the other questions, it's a matter of opinion. I think it will hurt the overall Republican popularity in the US, and polls seem to be agreeing with me, but others disagree. It definitely has the potential to hurt them in future elections, and there are lots of very big name Republicans (current senators, Karl Rove, etc.) expressing the opinion that it will and trying to get the extremists to back down. Of course, you never really know until it happens.
|
Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
