US government shutdown - Page 70

On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:
I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38.

The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Pain

While our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not.

Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto.

Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story.

[...]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown

On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:
I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38.

On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:


That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault".

On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:

Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy.

Care to clarify?

On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:


If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really.

The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Pain

While our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not.

Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto.

Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story.

[...]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown

On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
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 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:

You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty.

On October 09 2013 00:06 ragz_gt wrote:


Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was.

On October 08 2013 16:46 omnic wrote:

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 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
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 23:25 Derez wrote:

You really can't claim that the debt ceiling is about 'future' spending. All of it consists of spending that has already been appropriated by congress. If congress objected to the debt ceiling reaching this level they should have worried about it when they passed the legislation that got it to this point, right now there's nothing that anyone can do short term to avoid going through the ceiling.

Also, Obama is not asking congress to pass his budget. He's asking them to pass a budget that's already been negotiated by republicans and democrats, which is very close to the original republican proposal as I understand it or, alternatively a clean CR.

On October 08 2013 23:55 Velr wrote:



Yeah, it's like Obama is actually doing what the Republicans didn't believe he would... Let the shutdown actually be a shutdown. Well.. By voting in these nutjobs you had it coming.
If the Republicans would truely care about these children, why was there no vote about the budget as a whole yet? Oh right, this would end the "war on democracy" the Republicans started in a heartbeat.


You could also argue that the Republicans are using these childrens as leverage to force "compromise" (lol) on Obama.

On October 09 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:

The most egregious "PR BS" at play here would be the unnecessary shutdowns which are being done in a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to American citizens. The gambit is angry citizens will direct their anger at Republicans.

The site I linked is just an aggregated list of completely unneeded shutdowns. Go try reading it.

Sure, both sides could cave in and end the stalemate. Only one side is going out of their way to shut down colonial farms which recieve no taxpayer money, and other such attractions which actually generate profit for the federal government.

On October 09 2013 00:26 ragz_gt wrote:


You can't just go "oh, they don't get funding, so they don't need to be shutdown" when you shutdown the frigging government... It's a faulty premise to start with, as what's shutdown and what not is detailed in provision as part of the deal way before the whole cluster fuck start, same as during previous shutdown. The shutdown is not even a fiscal issue, rather than logistic issue, as it is illegal to keep institute operational with private donation and such, even though it makes practical sense.

On October 09 2013 00:01 Zaqwe wrote:

If you read the link you would notice they are shutting down places that receive no federal funding and in fact generate profit and pay the government.

They are spending taxpayer money for no reason other than to cause maximum suffering.

If the government ever really did shut down they wouldn't be able to send goons with guns to prevent people from enjoying colonial farms which recieve no federal funding, etc.

On October 09 2013 00:32 Zaqwe wrote:

I think you would really benefit from visiting the link and attempting to read it.

Most of these places were not blockaded during previous shutdowns. It costs more money to "shut them down" than it would to leave them open. In this context "shut down" means sending armed goons to prevent people from going about their business as usual. It's not like they are just not staffing places any more, the exact opposite is happening: they are sending staff to set up blockades when it isn't needed.

It's really hard to have a conversation when you are only arguing against your own imagination instead of addressing the facts.

On October 09 2013 00:26 ragz_gt wrote:


You can't just go "oh, they don't get funding, so they don't need to be shutdown" when you shutdown the frigging government... It's a faulty premise to start with, as what's shutdown and what not is detailed in provision as part of the deal way before the whole cluster fuck start, same as during previous shutdown. The shutdown is not even a fiscal issue, rather than logistic issue, as it is illegal to keep institute operational with private donation and such, even though it makes practical sense.