EPTUS government shutdown - Page 58
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:04 Yergidy wrote: It's a check/balance in the constitution there so that the other 2 branches of government can run the whole country any way they want. Before the government shut down the house sent over 3 different bills, 1st to de-fund, 2nd to delay the mandate by 1 year, 3rd JUST to have the healthcare law apply to all of the congressmen just as it does to their constituents, and the democrats wouldn't even go to a fucking committee. Shows how much they wanted to stop the government shutdown. republicans are willing to compromise, the democrats will not. Who is shutting down WWII monuments, state funded national parks, and even part of the fucking ocean? The democrats. Who is unwilling to compromise at all? The democrats. Every president who has been in office during a government shutdown has compromised and talked to the opposition except one... Obama. Clinton was talking with the republicans on a daily basis to try and work something out. So who is throwing a temper tantrum just because they can't get their way 100%? I'll let you answer that one. The Check/Balance system was designed with the intent that every member of the senate and the house would be an autonomous entity making decisions entirely on their own based on what they saw was right or wrong. The Founding Fathers never foresaw the concept of a two party system that we wound up with, and nowhere in the constitution does it even mention political parties. The system is broken by two entirely opposed parties toeing the party lines. And yeah, it's still the Republicans. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:23 Yergidy wrote: No, I knew it wouldn't change any of your minds because you have to look past all that in the first place to say it's the republicans who are throwing the temper tantrum. Negotiation is an insane tactic? Apparently Obama can negotiate with Iran, but not the republicans? I guess all 5 presidents in 17 different government shutdowns who negotiated with the opposing party are "fucking insane" then too. I didn't say negotiating was an insane tactic, apologies if I was unclear. My point is that this is *not* a negotiation, it's a hostage situation. A hostage taker has nothing to offer except that he won't kill the hostage. In a negotiation, both sides are supposed to give and get something. In a theoretical negotiation with Iran, you could imagine the U.S. lifting trade and banking embargoes, in an exchange for a more transparent nuclear enrichment process, and unrestricted inspector access. Both sides give up something, and both sides get something. In this situation, the Democrats are supposed to delay the implementation of their major achievement in power... in exchange for what? For Congress to do its job? The Republicans aren't offering anything, they're only threatening to blow up the country. If can't tell the difference between hostage-taking and negotiation, I'm not sure what else to say. | ||
KwarK
United States43232 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:23 Kaitlin wrote: I take issue with the fact that Obama supporters see nothing wrong with his Administration trying to close the fucking Ocean. Also, constructing obstacles to block monuments that are generally open 24/7 without security necessary. The point of shutting parts down is that costs are not authorized to be incurred. This President is actually incurring costs to enforce the closing of things that cost absolutely nothing to keep open, and dopes don't see anything wrong with this. I'd be very surprised if Obama was personally behind the closing of the ocean. | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:30 KwarK wrote: I'd be very surprised if Obama was personally behind the closing of the ocean. It's his administration, so he is ultimately responsible. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:33 Yergidy wrote: It's his administration, so he is ultimately responsible. I suppose George W. Bush was personally responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib as well. | ||
|
GTPGlitch
5061 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:33 Yergidy wrote: It's his administration, so he is ultimately responsible. I suppose he also made Mr. Weiner (seriously #1 unfortunate name NA) sext all those women? | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:29 Funnytoss wrote: I didn't say negotiating was an insane tactic, apologies if I was unclear. My point is that this is *not* a negotiation, it's a hostage situation. A hostage taker has nothing to offer except that he won't kill the hostage. In a negotiation, both sides are supposed to give and get something. In a theoretical negotiation with Iran, you could imagine the U.S. lifting trade and banking embargoes, in an exchange for a more transparent nuclear enrichment process, and unrestricted inspector access. Both sides give up something, and both sides get something. In this situation, the Democrats are supposed to delay the implementation of their major achievement in power... in exchange for what? For Congress to do its job? The Republicans aren't offering anything, they're only threatening to blow up the country. If can't tell the difference between hostage-taking and negotiation, I'm not sure what else to say. Republican's may be willing to let go of Obama care if the Democrats agree to some other budget proposals that the republicans want, you don't know that unless you are willing to talk with them or just have a fucking committee on the bill like you're supposed to have when the house and senate don't agree on a bill. And the last bill before the government shut down was not a delay or defund bill. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43232 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24741 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:39 Yergidy wrote: Republican's may be willing to let go of Obama care if the Democrats agree to some other budget proposals that the republicans want, you don't know that unless you are willing to talk with them or just have a fucking committee on the bill like you're supposed to have when the house and senate don't agree on a bill. And the last bill before the government shut down was not a delay or defund bill. I want to make sure I understand your example. You are saying it's a mischaracterization that the only thing the republicans are bringing to the table in a potential negotiation over the ACA is the fact that the republicans will allow a budget to pass, and also prevent a default in a few days. In fact, through negotiation the republicans might be willing to offer the following: they will 'let go' of obamacare....... All the democrats have to do is make some other major concession. | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:43 micronesia wrote: I want to make sure I understand your example. You are saying it's a mischaracterization that the only thing the republicans are bringing to the table in a potential negotiation over the ACA is the fact that the republicans will allow a budget to pass, and also prevent a default in a few days. In fact, through negotiation the republicans might be willing to offer the following: they will 'let go' of obamacare....... All the democrats have to do is make some other major concession. I'm saying no one knows what exactly is on the table unless the two talk to one another. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:23 Yergidy wrote: No, I knew it wouldn't change any of your minds because you have to look past all that in the first place to say it's the republicans who are throwing the temper tantrum. Negotiation is an insane tactic? Apparently Obama can negotiate with Iran, but not the republicans? I guess all 5 presidents in 17 different government shutdowns who negotiated with the opposing party are "fucking insane" then too. What the Republicans want to negotiate on is a piece of legislation that has already passed both the House and the Senate. They are using the functioning of the government as their bargaining chip and are effectively holding the government hostage by refusing to pass a budget until their demands are met. Forbidding the function of government until the other party agrees to do what you want is completely unacceptable. On October 07 2013 15:41 KwarK wrote: Given that we know that Obama did personally authorise the extra-judicial murder of American citizens by the military I am baffled why people are trying to get him on a vague association with a bit of sea where you can't go fishing for the next few days. It's like getting Hitler on parking tickets. Or closer, getting Al Capone on tax evasion. | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
Could somebody please explain to me what exactly is shut down? On the surface it appears that the government is functioning, and only things like national parks, long-term research and periodic safety checks are suspended (i.e. if they are suspended for a short while and are resumed later then the impact is small). Am I wrong? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24741 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:45 Yergidy wrote: I'm saying no one knows what exactly is on the table unless the two talk to one another. If the republicans are willing to make concessions in order to try to get equal concessions out of the democrats, they don't need the threat of a default or a government shutdown in order to do it. There have been, and will be in the future, ample opportunities for proposals that both sides will be willing to consider. I don't see why we should be giving the republicans the benefit of the doubt in this situation.... it's pretty transparent their bargaining chip right now is the threat of defaulting and continuing the government shutdown. In the recent past it has been the republicans who have been more likely to pass up on an opportunity for bipartisanship and actual progress in order to be able to pin the resulting failure on poor leadership from the president. That too was pretty transparent and probably backfired a bit in Obama's second election. | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine. Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.” Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine. What should we do??? Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job. Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine. Bill is a f*cking jackass. obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:47 Alex1Sun wrote: Hi all, Could somebody please explain to me what exactly is shut down? On the surface it appears that the government is functioning, and only things like national parks, long-term research and periodic safety checks are suspended (i.e. if they are suspended for a short while and are resumed later then the impact is small). Am I wrong? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/29/questions-and-answers-about-the-shutdown/2888419/ That article paints a decent picture. About 800,000 government employees are on furlough, and anyone who has a contract with the federal government probably isn't getting paid until this is over. And even though military count as "essential" and will still get paid, the Pentagon says that the people who actually process the paychecks don't, so they may not have the staff to get October 15 checks out on time and will likely fall further and further behind if spending doesn't get approved, which it sounds like it won't until either a full CR is passed or an actual (*gasp*) budget. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
How can anyone have the chutzpah to suggest that it's the democrats who won't 'negotiate'? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8641 Posts
On October 07 2013 15:23 Kaitlin wrote: I take issue with the fact that Obama supporters see nothing wrong with his Administration trying to close the fucking Ocean. Also, constructing obstacles to block monuments that are generally open 24/7 without security necessary. The point of shutting parts down is that costs are not authorized to be incurred. This President is actually incurring costs to enforce the closing of things that cost absolutely nothing to keep open, and dopes don't see anything wrong with this. In the grand scheme of things... that's a main concern now? As if this whole situation wouldn't be absurd enough without such non issues. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 07 2013 16:10 Doublemint wrote: In the grand scheme of things... that's a main concern now? As if this whole situation wouldn't be absurd enough without such non issues. TBH its about all Republicans have to try and deflect the shutdown. They know the country, and the world for that matter, sees through the bullshit and puts the entirety of the blame on them. So they're throwing out complete non issues to go "See what the meany Democrats are doing?!" When in fact, NONE of this would be happening if Republicans weren't being children in the first place. | ||
|
chiflutz
Romania1025 Posts
| ||
| ||
