|
On October 08 2013 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:08 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Your honest opinion is factually incorrect. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. Control over appropriation is shared between both the House and Senate. Both Reps and Dems have control. Control over lack of appropriation is falling squarely on the House. It only takes one to stop the appropriation. Semantics. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. The House has passed appropriation.
So is it the house, the senate or both?
|
On October 08 2013 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:08 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Your honest opinion is factually incorrect. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. Control over appropriation is shared between both the House and Senate. Both Reps and Dems have control. Control over lack of appropriation is falling squarely on the House. It only takes one to stop the appropriation. Semantics. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. The House has passed appropriation.
The ACA is currently law. It requires appropriation. Congress is denying that appropriation.
It is not the Senate's job to simply stamp approval on what nonsense Congress might send to them.
Congress needs to send the Senate a bill it can vote on. It's failed to do that. Congress knows that the Senate needs a bill that funds the ACA. That has to happen. Congress needs to do that.
You negotiate over law before you pass the laws, or when you referendum them. You don't negotiate over law by screwing with the budget.
You could use semantics, I suppose, as you're currently doing, to argue that it's both Houses' fault -- but that's putting semantics over simple reality. That's why you're giving me short one-liners instead of making an actual point.
The ACA was already passed. It is law. It requires appropriation. Congress is the only one refusing to do that, despite this law having already been passed and voted on, more than any other law in American history.
|
On October 08 2013 13:37 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 13:08 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Your honest opinion is factually incorrect. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. Control over appropriation is shared between both the House and Senate. Both Reps and Dems have control. Control over lack of appropriation is falling squarely on the House. It only takes one to stop the appropriation. Semantics. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. The House has passed appropriation. The ACA is currently law. It requires appropriation. Congress is denying that appropriation. It is not the Senate's job to simply stamp approval on what nonsense Congress might send to them. Congress needs to send the Senate a bill it can vote on. It's failed to do that. Congress knows that the Senate needs a bill that funds the ACA. That has to happen. Congress needs to do that. You negotiate over law before you pass the laws, or when you referendum them. You don't negotiate over law by screwing with the budget. You could use semantics, I suppose, as you're currently doing, to argue that it's both Houses' fault -- but that's putting semantics over simple reality. That's why you're giving me short one-liners instead of making an actual point. The ACA was already passed. It is law. It requires appropriation. Congress is the only one refusing to do that, despite this law having already been passed and voted on, more than any other law in American history.
You're confused here. Congress is both the chambers.
Congress = Senate + House
|
There have been 17 government shutdowns in the US since 1976 and all have been resolved with negotiations and/or temporary agreements.
To sit idle and talk about the debt possibly defaulting for the first time in history which would cause worldwide economic fallout, is just as bad as sitting on something without calling it to a vote.
Just the way I see it.
|
On October 08 2013 13:37 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 13:08 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Your honest opinion is factually incorrect. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. Control over appropriation is shared between both the House and Senate. Both Reps and Dems have control. Control over lack of appropriation is falling squarely on the House. It only takes one to stop the appropriation. Semantics. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. The House has passed appropriation. The ACA is currently law. It requires appropriation. Congress is denying that appropriation. It is not the Senate's job to simply stamp approval on what nonsense Congress might send to them. Congress needs to send the Senate a bill it can vote on. It's failed to do that. Congress knows that the Senate needs a bill that funds the ACA. That has to happen. Congress needs to do that. You negotiate over law before you pass the laws, or when you referendum them. You don't negotiate over law by screwing with the budget. You could use semantics, I suppose, as you're currently doing, to argue that it's both Houses' fault -- but that's putting semantics over simple reality. That's why you're giving me short one-liners instead of making an actual point. The ACA was already passed. It is law. It requires appropriation. Congress is the only one refusing to do that, despite this law having already been passed and voted on, more than any other law in American history.
It's not semantics. Both chambers have the power to end the deadlock. The only thing stopping them is politics and what either side should or should not do is strictly a matter of opinion.
|
On October 08 2013 13:54 LuckyFool wrote:
There have been 17 government shutdowns in the US since 1976 and all have been resolved with negotiations and/or temporary agreements.
To sit idle and talk about the debt possibly defaulting for the first time in history which would cause worldwide economic fallout, is just as bad as sitting on something without calling it to a vote.
Just the way I see it.
1) Those negotiations have never been over a law that has already been passed, yet one side is deciding not to pass something in order to stop that law from going in to effect. This is unprecedented.
2) Negotiations means both sides offer something in exchange for an agreement. How is that possible when they are demanding to remove obamacare, but offering nothing in return aside from agreeing?
3) One side is doing this out of pure manipulation of the other party and trying to force them in to an ultimatum. For example, let's say you are the manager of the facility at your job, which is at a hospital. The Nurse's working there decide they won't do their job until they get what they want - for a random example lets just say an extra hour of lunch. If you give it to them, what's going to happen? Then next time Doctors decide they want something, they are going to put another ultimatum on the table. What happens if you don't give it to them then? Then you will be the bad guy because you aren't acting consistently, and they will try to remove you from your position due to unequal practices.
That's the thing many people don't understand. This isn't a regular disagreement. The fight on Obamacare shouldn't even be taking place here. They are only doing it because they lost every other time and this is a last ditch effort to stop it. If it goes in to effect and people actually start using Obamacare all of a sudden there are more democratic voters all over the country, and all their lies about Obamacare will be exposed, and that scares the shit out of them.
On October 08 2013 14:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:37 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 13:08 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Your honest opinion is factually incorrect. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. Control over appropriation is shared between both the House and Senate. Both Reps and Dems have control. Control over lack of appropriation is falling squarely on the House. It only takes one to stop the appropriation. Semantics. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. The House has passed appropriation. The ACA is currently law. It requires appropriation. Congress is denying that appropriation. It is not the Senate's job to simply stamp approval on what nonsense Congress might send to them. Congress needs to send the Senate a bill it can vote on. It's failed to do that. Congress knows that the Senate needs a bill that funds the ACA. That has to happen. Congress needs to do that. You negotiate over law before you pass the laws, or when you referendum them. You don't negotiate over law by screwing with the budget. You could use semantics, I suppose, as you're currently doing, to argue that it's both Houses' fault -- but that's putting semantics over simple reality. That's why you're giving me short one-liners instead of making an actual point. The ACA was already passed. It is law. It requires appropriation. Congress is the only one refusing to do that, despite this law having already been passed and voted on, more than any other law in American history. It's not semantics. Both chambers have the power to end the deadlock. The only thing stopping them is politics and what either side should or should not do is strictly a matter of opinion.
Not quite. The only thing stopping them is an ultimatum that shouldn't even be happening, where there should be severe penalties in place for this even happening. Yet there is not, because nobody thought people would push it this far.
|
On October 08 2013 14:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:37 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 13:08 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 13:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Your honest opinion is factually incorrect. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. Control over appropriation is shared between both the House and Senate. Both Reps and Dems have control. Control over lack of appropriation is falling squarely on the House. It only takes one to stop the appropriation. Semantics. The shutdown occurs from the Congress's lack of appropriation, controlled by the Republicans. It was, and continues to be, their choice. The House has passed appropriation. The ACA is currently law. It requires appropriation. Congress is denying that appropriation. It is not the Senate's job to simply stamp approval on what nonsense Congress might send to them. Congress needs to send the Senate a bill it can vote on. It's failed to do that. Congress knows that the Senate needs a bill that funds the ACA. That has to happen. Congress needs to do that. You negotiate over law before you pass the laws, or when you referendum them. You don't negotiate over law by screwing with the budget. You could use semantics, I suppose, as you're currently doing, to argue that it's both Houses' fault -- but that's putting semantics over simple reality. That's why you're giving me short one-liners instead of making an actual point. The ACA was already passed. It is law. It requires appropriation. Congress is the only one refusing to do that, despite this law having already been passed and voted on, more than any other law in American history. It's not semantics. Both chambers have the power to end the deadlock. The only thing stopping them is politics and what either side should or should not do is strictly a matter of opinion.
I feel like saying both have the ability to end it is kinda like saying a girl has the ability to end a rape by just making it consensual. There has been so much validation (general election, supreme court, etc) of the ACA and so many votes to get rid of it that go nowhere. What if republicans tried to do away with the minimum wage? Would it be the same? If only democrats would vote to end the minimum wage, everything would be fine? I don't think this is a proper place for some kinda weird version of moral relativism. There is one side with a lot more credibility right now.
|
On October 08 2013 12:45 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Okay, I don't mean to be a jackass, but really how stupid can you be? There have been a handful of republicans that admitted they planned this, there's been a memo/email that was circulated by the Tea Party that was a 'How we'll shut down the government' and a blatant power play by one of the Tea Partiers. If you really think Obama planned all that...
On October 08 2013 12:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. So it's his fault for tricking them into being destructive ideological assholes because without his compromising in the past they'd have set their destructive ideological asshole scopes on less ambitiously destructive things?
Well, I just shared my opinion and expected some constructive feedback. Several forum members (both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat) game constructive feedback. Pro-Democrat GTPGlitch however decided to call me stupid, and pro-Democrat KwarK decided to call Republicans destructive ideological assholes without any explanation. Previously I had an idea that Democrats on average would be more level-headed than Republicans. This thread seems to confirm the opposite.
That is not to detract from responses by Djzapz, JonnyBNoHo and some other forum members. They have given good feedback, and I would like to thank them for that.
|
United States24690 Posts
On October 08 2013 15:08 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:45 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Okay, I don't mean to be a jackass, but really how stupid can you be? There have been a handful of republicans that admitted they planned this, there's been a memo/email that was circulated by the Tea Party that was a 'How we'll shut down the government' and a blatant power play by one of the Tea Partiers. If you really think Obama planned all that... Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:43 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. So it's his fault for tricking them into being destructive ideological assholes because without his compromising in the past they'd have set their destructive ideological asshole scopes on less ambitiously destructive things? Well, I just shared my opinion and expected some constructive feedback. Several forum members (both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat) game constructive feedback. Pro-Democrat GTPGlitch however decided to call me stupid, and pro-Democrat KwarK decided to call Republicans destructive ideological assholes without any explanation. Previously I had an idea that Democrats on average would be more level-headed. This thread seems to confirm the opposite. That is not to detract from responses by Djzapz, JonnyBNoHo and some other forum members. They have given good feedback, and I would like to thank them for that.
Your theory was pretty wacky, and I don't think you should try to judge a political party and its supporters by how they responded to your particular conjecture.
No, president Obama is not some brilliant mastermind who has manipulated the republicans over the years of his presidency into the type of situation you described. Even if your theory was somehow completely accurate, blame would surely not fall entirely on president Obama, as you suggested.
|
On October 08 2013 15:13 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 15:08 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 08 2013 12:45 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Okay, I don't mean to be a jackass, but really how stupid can you be? There have been a handful of republicans that admitted they planned this, there's been a memo/email that was circulated by the Tea Party that was a 'How we'll shut down the government' and a blatant power play by one of the Tea Partiers. If you really think Obama planned all that... On October 08 2013 12:43 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. So it's his fault for tricking them into being destructive ideological assholes because without his compromising in the past they'd have set their destructive ideological asshole scopes on less ambitiously destructive things? Well, I just shared my opinion and expected some constructive feedback. Several forum members (both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat) game constructive feedback. Pro-Democrat GTPGlitch however decided to call me stupid, and pro-Democrat KwarK decided to call Republicans destructive ideological assholes without any explanation. Previously I had an idea that Democrats on average would be more level-headed. This thread seems to confirm the opposite. That is not to detract from responses by Djzapz, JonnyBNoHo and some other forum members. They have given good feedback, and I would like to thank them for that. Your theory was pretty wacky, and I don't think you should try to judge a political party and its supporters by how they responded to your particular conjecture. No, president Obama is not some brilliant mastermind who has manipulated the republicans over the years of his presidency into the type of situation you described. Even if your theory was somehow completely accurate, blame would surely not fall entirely on president Obama, as you suggested.
Well, yeah, I partially agree now. However is wackiness reason enough for name calling? I somehow thought these forums had a different policy...
|
1) Those negotiations have never been over a law that has already been passed, yet one side is deciding not to pass something in order to stop that law from going in to effect. This is unprecedented.
2) Negotiations means both sides offer something in exchange for an agreement. How is that possible when they are demanding to remove obamacare, but offering nothing in return aside from agreeing?
3) One side is doing this out of pure manipulation of the other party and trying to force them in to an ultimatum. For example, let's say you are the manager of the facility at your job, which is at a hospital. The Nurse's working there decide they won't do their job until they get what they want - for a random example lets just say an extra hour of lunch. If you give it to them, what's going to happen? Then next time Doctors decide they want something, they are going to put another ultimatum on the table. What happens if you don't give it to them then? Then you will be the bad guy because you aren't acting consistently, and they will try to remove you from your position due to unequal practices.
To your first question, I will say it was passed but not funded in a budget. I'll put it simply: The House has passed a continuing resolution funding the government with a delay in the individual mandate and a tax cut. That's already been passed. One side is deciding to not pass something, and that is the compromise bill sent to them. That is the Democratic side, Obama's side. Like before, Democrats are unwilling to cut spending and continue to pass burdensome laws, some would say well-intentioned but destructive, and it takes a Republican willingness to shut down the ~50% the House has control over to get anything done. We got a balanced budget and welfare reform last time. Maybe not over a specific bill, but over a collection of spending bills that weren't going through the president and the senate (but nooo you're not allowed to use the constitutional power of taxing and spending in that situation). To call this action unprecedented is to glaze over the similarities in the history of government shutdowns.
To address the second question, I think the negotiation is rather straightforward. Change some aspects of Obamacare or we will not spend the American taxpayer's money on it. You get the funding from the side of Congress with the power to appropriate it, we get concessions on the law.
Considering how much the deal has changed, I can't agree with you that it's trying to force them in to an ultimatum. It was delivered and denied already. Now it's gone from defunding to changing, and from changing to negotiating on other matters related to spending cuts and a real negotiation. The nurse example is tainted by the separation of powers not inherent in their administration. If the nurse's union and hospital administration disagreed on an issue affecting nurses, the nurse's union can bargain over the contract and strike if no favorable terms are found, and the hospital administration can hire non-union etc etc. I don't see enough parallels to use it. The Democrats obviously see something to be gained and have a complicit media to portray them as rationale and the Republicans as children, so it's the politics of public opinion and visibility once again ... another shade in the types of Congressional budget fighting that has been going on since time immemorial.
|
Alex's theory was not wacky, it was unexplained. This happens a lot on TL. Regarding "tricking" Republicans into this situation, it's basically accepted by analysts once you put some meat on the bones of that statement.
One of the main roles of the opposition in the legislature is to discuss the budget. The budget is the key to the running of the government, so it's the prime candidate for contention. Governments all around the world rise and fall according to their ability to pass the budget. The US has an additional mechanic to emphasize the role of the legislature on the budget, that's the debt ceiling. Not only does the budget have to make sense, it has to either keep the underneath the debt ceiling or Congress has to negotiate a deal how to raise it (standardly, this involves spending cuts and tax raises to bring the debt down eventually). The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations.
In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault.
So to call Republicans "ideological assholes" and whatnot is out of place and quite rude (no surprises here, Kwark) and Alex's position was actually sound, if poorly worded and worse explained.
|
On October 08 2013 15:22 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 15:13 micronesia wrote:On October 08 2013 15:08 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 08 2013 12:45 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Okay, I don't mean to be a jackass, but really how stupid can you be? There have been a handful of republicans that admitted they planned this, there's been a memo/email that was circulated by the Tea Party that was a 'How we'll shut down the government' and a blatant power play by one of the Tea Partiers. If you really think Obama planned all that... On October 08 2013 12:43 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. So it's his fault for tricking them into being destructive ideological assholes because without his compromising in the past they'd have set their destructive ideological asshole scopes on less ambitiously destructive things? Well, I just shared my opinion and expected some constructive feedback. Several forum members (both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat) game constructive feedback. Pro-Democrat GTPGlitch however decided to call me stupid, and pro-Democrat KwarK decided to call Republicans destructive ideological assholes without any explanation. Previously I had an idea that Democrats on average would be more level-headed. This thread seems to confirm the opposite. That is not to detract from responses by Djzapz, JonnyBNoHo and some other forum members. They have given good feedback, and I would like to thank them for that. Your theory was pretty wacky, and I don't think you should try to judge a political party and its supporters by how they responded to your particular conjecture. No, president Obama is not some brilliant mastermind who has manipulated the republicans over the years of his presidency into the type of situation you described. Even if your theory was somehow completely accurate, blame would surely not fall entirely on president Obama, as you suggested. Well, yeah, I partially agree now. However is wackiness reason enough for name calling? I somehow thought these forums had a different policy...
You're right having an opinion that is a bit wacky isn't reason enough for some one to start name calling. Mostly because there is never a good reason for name calling(because it isn't productive).People are resorting to it out of frustration and I would ask that you try to understand their frustrations before discarding their opinions. Why you should do this this should be self evident in my opinion so I'm going to assume you agree but if you don't agree with me that it's self evident say so and I'll post why I believe that is so.
All that said the problem really is that people are trying to justify what the republicans are doing through mental gymnastics. There are people who are currently arguing on this subject by implying or flat out saying that the government shut down is just as much the democrats fault as the republicans. The basis of these arguments usually rely on the idea that what the republicans are currently doing is no different than them trying to argue against the bill before a law is passed and that the republicans are being just as reasonable as the democrats. Going further the stance many have taken is that this is acceptable and that because government shutdowns have happened in the past means that this doesn't set a dangerous precedent because it deflates the gravity of a government shutdown. Government shut downs are a big deal just not in the way the words "government shut down" implies. People think that just because a government shut down doesn't mean complete anarchy it also means business as usual which it does not.
Now considering that lets take a look at what you said. You said that Obama manipulated republicans into doing something that would hurt them in the long run. This implies that the republicans are somehow vindicated for their part in the government shut down and that most of the blame should be shifted onto the democrats (or more specifically Obama.). It also implies that Obama would willingly hurt the american people indirectly if it means hurting the republican party and that's not nothing. It's actually a VERY disgusting thing if it was true which is why you got the reactions you did. You can't just throw a claim out there like that and expect people to treat it (or you) with respect because you're not treating the subject with respect unless you have some pretty solid evidence supporting it.
p.s. I'm sorry if I came across as a dick but I probably did because i'm a dick.
|
On October 08 2013 15:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +1) Those negotiations have never been over a law that has already been passed, yet one side is deciding not to pass something in order to stop that law from going in to effect. This is unprecedented.
2) Negotiations means both sides offer something in exchange for an agreement. How is that possible when they are demanding to remove obamacare, but offering nothing in return aside from agreeing?
3) One side is doing this out of pure manipulation of the other party and trying to force them in to an ultimatum. For example, let's say you are the manager of the facility at your job, which is at a hospital. The Nurse's working there decide they won't do their job until they get what they want - for a random example lets just say an extra hour of lunch. If you give it to them, what's going to happen? Then next time Doctors decide they want something, they are going to put another ultimatum on the table. What happens if you don't give it to them then? Then you will be the bad guy because you aren't acting consistently, and they will try to remove you from your position due to unequal practices. To your first question, I will say it was passed but not funded in a budget. I'll put it simply: The House has passed a continuing resolution funding the government with a delay in the individual mandate and a tax cut. That's already been passed. One side is deciding to not pass something, and that is the compromise bill sent to them. That is the Democratic side, Obama's side. Like before, Democrats are unwilling to cut spending and continue to pass burdensome laws, some would say well-intentioned but destructive, and it takes a Republican willingness to shut down the ~50% the House has control over to get anything done. We got a balanced budget and welfare reform last time. Maybe not over a specific bill, but over a collection of spending bills that weren't going through the president and the senate (but nooo you're not allowed to use the constitutional power of taxing and spending in that situation). To call this action unprecedented is to glaze over the similarities in the history of government shutdowns. To address the second question, I think the negotiation is rather straightforward. Change some aspects of Obamacare or we will not spend the American taxpayer's money on it. You get the funding from the side of Congress with the power to appropriate it, we get concessions on the law. Considering how much the deal has changed, I can't agree with you that it's trying to force them in to an ultimatum. It was delivered and denied already. Now it's gone from defunding to changing, and from changing to negotiating on other matters related to spending cuts and a real negotiation. The nurse example is tainted by the separation of powers not inherent in their administration. If the nurse's union and hospital administration disagreed on an issue affecting nurses, the nurse's union can bargain over the contract and strike if no favorable terms are found, and the hospital administration can hire non-union etc etc. I don't see enough parallels to use it. The Democrats obviously see something to be gained and have a complicit media to portray them as rationale and the Republicans as children, so it's the politics of public opinion and visibility once again ... another shade in the types of Congressional budget fighting that has been going on since time immemorial.
In response to 1) The fact that it passed means it is also supposed to be funded, and they are trying to not fund it at all, effectively using this as a means of stopping it. As if it "being passed" didn't happen. Yet it did. I don't understand how you can ignore that nor act like this is the time to argue if it should be funded or not. The discussion now should be focused on how to fund it, not how to prevent it from being funded.
2) That's not a negotiation, that's a demand. Besides, using "we" in this context isn't even a fair comment. It would be "we" if the house actually voted on it. Yet the vote wasn't even being allowed,
How don't you see that the fact that they didn't even allow a vote is reeking of foul play, where the minority of the house is speaking for the entire house? Can you come up with any other reason they would not even allow a vote?
3) How can you talk about real negotiation? What negotiation is there other than demands from one side? The house leaders say they would agree if obamacare is removed, what are they giving dems in exchange as incentive to agree to that? The answer: Putting people back to work? That's disgusting and federal workers shouldn't be pawns in their manipulation. My GF works at the VA and they aren't even sure if they are going to be paid until this ends, and it's BS. And I can't believe people such as you are claiming it's not an ultimatum.
Then you argue with my example trying to say it's not exactly the same, and of course it's not, there's no comparison in existence that is exactly the same. I'm sure you got my point all the same, but instead of arguing with the point I made you argue the semantics then then complain about the media. As if the media doesn't try to make both sides look like fools.
Heres another example, and again it's not perfect, but think about the point I'm making. If your boss told you he was going to "negotiate" with you on a pay raise, but the offer is to either accept a pay raise without benefits, or you won't receive any pay at all... would you really say that's not an ultimatum? It doesn't make any sense that you claim this is an ultimatum when the house leaders are offering nothing aside from passing the bill, it's a given that both sides are supposed to PASS it, but in a negotiation both sides are supposed to give and give up something. House leaders want dems to give up obamacare but nothing in return aside from passing - be real, that's not negotiation that's an ultimatum.
And your final claims about this being another shade of congressional budget fighting is completely disregarding the fact that these things are unprecedented and never happened before. Shut downs happened before, disagreements happened before, not refusing to remove all funding from a law that was passed without even allowing the house a vote with negotiations that offer nothing aside from passing.
But the argument is pointless, because regardless of what you believe, there are hundreds of thousands of federal workers, as well as their families (which again, I am part of one of them, and I've talked to many others since we know others who work at the same place as my GF), who see the truth and are tired of being pawns. Maybe if the house leaders actually allowed a vote people would be a little more understanding of the situation the house is in, but as long as they don't even allow the vote it makes the culprits, the manipulation, and the foul play obvious.
(PS: If I could "like" a post on this forum, I would like the one above mine, specifically for the first 2 paragraphs stating things very well.)
|
I love how foreign invasions, incarcerating the black population to work for free, drone strikes and pretending to be aid agencies in order to carry out attacks is all cool, but the idea of free healthcare for the poor is worth shutting down the government on "principle"?
Seriously.
This event is probably the single biggest proof that business owns government that I've ever seen.
|
Since I am not a US citizen, my understanding regarding US internal politics is only superficial. Although I am familiar with the basic conflict, I would like to hear from people with more insight than me, if the US politicians - I am not going to point fingers, although I am of the opinion that the Republicans being hijacked by some right-wing radicals is something I cannot really fathom - are self-destructive and politically and economically suicidal enough to let this shut down turn into bankruptcy.
Or can we expect Boehner and/or Obama to give in in some way or another?
|
On October 08 2013 07:53 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:47 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 06:49 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either. Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle" I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary. Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government? I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need. I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis. Everything you've said is anarchy, and it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say this, but whenever someone starts talking about government in terms of monopoly on force and such nonsense, I pretty much immediately tune them out. Calling us 'collectivist' pretty much makes it obvious what you are and what you stand for. And yeah, people like Bill Gates (whom I've met in person and had the opportunity to talk to) who you shamelessly use as your tag who are good people and wealthy actually do give away more than half their income to charity, but at the end of the day, most of us can't afford that, which is why the wealth gap is such an issue and why we need the ACA in the first fucking place.
You do realize that in the USA, poor is someone earning less than 30k a year right? You realize in other countries that is super rich, you realize certain countries have $1000 average yearly salary, so your word of "poor" is meaningless. You might as well argue that the moon is made out of cheese. Your word is just a word, its not an argument, its not a fact, its meaningless. Wealth is so subjective, its impossible to quantify in certain exact number.
Though liberty and free human interaction provides the most wealth for the most amount of people, whether government shares the misery. Ultimately it comes down to collectivism or individualism and voluntarism or totalitarianism.
Anarchy what you mention is no rules, anarcho capitalism is a system based on private property and capital. I'm voluntarist in the if you want big government you can have, just don't force me into it or to oblige by it. Get a group of people who want big government and go wild with yourself, don't assume everyone wants big government, don't assume big government is great, don't assume people with guns and shiny badges have the right to force someone to give half of his money to the government.
Wouldn't you agree that is best? Run your healthcare, run your lives, have a totalitarian control freak state, don't infringe upon other people's right if they don't want to be a part of that system.
In obamacare for example you can't get away from it, you do not have an option to not be forced to buy insurance from the giant private corporations that you whine all day about how bad they are, yet here you are praising this fascist law that forces people into buying insurance. That is the most evil, dictatorial system that you can get. You don't have free choice under obamacare, you are a slave to the state and are forced to buy certain services and products.
Please don't tell me how humanitarian and good obamacare and big government is. When you stop forcing people and running their lives, it may actually serve some small limited purpose and you may have some argument for it, otherwise please stop.
|
On October 08 2013 20:17 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:53 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 07:47 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 06:49 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either. Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle" I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary. Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government? I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need. I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis. Everything you've said is anarchy, and it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say this, but whenever someone starts talking about government in terms of monopoly on force and such nonsense, I pretty much immediately tune them out. Calling us 'collectivist' pretty much makes it obvious what you are and what you stand for. And yeah, people like Bill Gates (whom I've met in person and had the opportunity to talk to) who you shamelessly use as your tag who are good people and wealthy actually do give away more than half their income to charity, but at the end of the day, most of us can't afford that, which is why the wealth gap is such an issue and why we need the ACA in the first fucking place. You do realize that in the USA, poor is someone earning less than 30k a year right? You realize in other countries that is super rich, you realize certain countries have $1000 average yearly salary, so your word of "poor" is meaningless. You might as well argue that the moon is made out of cheese. Your word is just a word, its not an argument, its not a fact, its meaningless. Wealth is so subjective, its impossible to quantify in certain exact number. Though liberty and free human interaction provides the most wealth for the most amount of people, whether government shares the misery. Ultimately it comes down to collectivism or individualism and voluntarism or totalitarianism. Anarchy what you mention is no rules, anarcho capitalism is a system based on private property and capital. I'm voluntarist in the if you want big government you can have, just don't force me into it or to oblige by it. Get a group of people who want big government and go wild with yourself, don't assume everyone wants big government, don't assume big government is great, don't assume people with guns and shiny badges have the right to force someone to give half of his money to the government. Wouldn't you agree that is best? Run your healthcare, run your lives, have a totalitarian control freak state, don't infringe upon other people's right if they don't want to be a part of that system. In obamacare for example you can't get away from it, you do not have an option to not be forced to buy insurance from the giant private corporations that you whine all day about how bad they are, yet here you are praising this fascist law that forces people into buying insurance. That is the most evil, dictatorial system that you can get. You don't have free choice under obamacare, you are a slave to the state and are forced to buy certain services and products. Please don't tell me how humanitarian and good obamacare and big government is. When you stop forcing people and running their lives, it may actually serve some small limited purpose and you may have some argument for it, otherwise please stop.
Gotta love how a concept like free healthcare looks like a 1984esque monster of a government controlling everyone's lives to some people.
|
It is not free healthcare, although the sum of its effects will constitute a transfer of funds for that purpose from the healthy to the ill, from men to women, from the young to the old, and from the wealthy to poor. The poor are still not necessarily going to have health insurance, the mechanisms of the act merely sweeten the pot for them.
As for this intrusive intimacy between the citizen and the state, our prophet as always is Tocqueville, nor Orwell.
|
On October 08 2013 20:17 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:53 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 07:47 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 06:49 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either. Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle" I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary. Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government? I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need. I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis. Everything you've said is anarchy, and it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say this, but whenever someone starts talking about government in terms of monopoly on force and such nonsense, I pretty much immediately tune them out. Calling us 'collectivist' pretty much makes it obvious what you are and what you stand for. And yeah, people like Bill Gates (whom I've met in person and had the opportunity to talk to) who you shamelessly use as your tag who are good people and wealthy actually do give away more than half their income to charity, but at the end of the day, most of us can't afford that, which is why the wealth gap is such an issue and why we need the ACA in the first fucking place. You do realize that in the USA, poor is someone earning less than 30k a year right? You realize in other countries that is super rich, you realize certain countries have $1000 average yearly salary, so your word of "poor" is meaningless. You might as well argue that the moon is made out of cheese. Your word is just a word, its not an argument, its not a fact, its meaningless. Wealth is so subjective, its impossible to quantify in certain exact number. Though liberty and free human interaction provides the most wealth for the most amount of people, whether government shares the misery. Ultimately it comes down to collectivism or individualism and voluntarism or totalitarianism. Anarchy what you mention is no rules, anarcho capitalism is a system based on private property and capital. I'm voluntarist in the if you want big government you can have, just don't force me into it or to oblige by it. Get a group of people who want big government and go wild with yourself, don't assume everyone wants big government, don't assume big government is great, don't assume people with guns and shiny badges have the right to force someone to give half of his money to the government. Wouldn't you agree that is best? Run your healthcare, run your lives, have a totalitarian control freak state, don't infringe upon other people's right if they don't want to be a part of that system. In obamacare for example you can't get away from it, you do not have an option to not be forced to buy insurance from the giant private corporations that you whine all day about how bad they are, yet here you are praising this fascist law that forces people into buying insurance. That is the most evil, dictatorial system that you can get. You don't have free choice under obamacare, you are a slave to the state and are forced to buy certain services and products. Please don't tell me how humanitarian and good obamacare and big government is. When you stop forcing people and running their lives, it may actually serve some small limited purpose and you may have some argument for it, otherwise please stop.
Liability insurance for cars is also compulsory in most US states too.
Clearly, this is totalitarianism. Unacceptable.
How about a trade: remove the personal mandate for health insurance so that people don't have to buy healthcare if they don't want to, in exchange, when people show up at a hospital uninsured and unable to pay, instead of socializing the cost, they don't get healthcare, no treatment, just let them die. Sounds fair?
Now that health insurers can't deny people health insurance when they get sick or have preexisting conditions, let's remove the mandate so that young and healthy people don't have to buy health insurance and can wait until they get sick. I wonder what that will do to the cost of health insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
