|
On October 09 2013 02:08 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:
shutting down some specific public services (that are not funded because of the Republicains) Here is a list of 38 shutdowns that are being done at expense to taxpayers, including places that do not require any federal funding. Some of them even pay money to the federal government, so blockading them and preventing them from doing business just makes budget issues worse. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Painhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
You still haven't explained how Obama, using his constitutional privileges to shut down non-essential programs and businesses, is any different from the House using their constitutional privileges to refuse to fund a bill that has been passed and approved time and time again by the other 2.5 branches of government.
The only difference is that the list of shutdowns caused by the House is much longer, affects a lot more people, and could cause permanent damage to the country.
|
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
|
On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
That's in two or three years. What are we doing until then?
|
On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
There is a 90+% reelection rate for house members. Keep dreaming 
|
On October 09 2013 02:27 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
There is a 90+% reelection rate for house members. Keep dreaming
Because of a system so insane and undemocratic even china would have problems with it.
The house has no responsibility to the American people. They represent a tiny subset of people that they themselves chose would represent them. How insane is that in a democracy.
|
On October 09 2013 02:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:27 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
There is a 90+% reelection rate for house members. Keep dreaming Because of a system so insane and undemocratic even china would have problems with it. The house has no responsibility to the American people. They represent a tiny subset of people that they themselves chose would represent them. How insane is that in a democracy.
This stat is hilarious because in 2010 the House had its lowest reelection rate since 1970 at 85% and the main topic was stopping/repealing the ACA.
|
On October 09 2013 02:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:27 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
There is a 90+% reelection rate for house members. Keep dreaming Because of a system so insane and undemocratic even china would have problems with it. The house has no responsibility to the American people. They represent a tiny subset of people that they themselves chose would represent them. How insane is that in a democracy.
Not so insane considering many academics consider the modern American system to be a Polyarchy and not a democracy.
|
On October 09 2013 02:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:27 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
There is a 90+% reelection rate for house members. Keep dreaming Because of a system so insane and undemocratic even china would have problems with it. The house has no responsibility to the American people. They represent a tiny subset of people that they themselves chose would represent them. How insane is that in a democracy.
Individual members of the House get elected by a subset of the population, but the House as a whole represents the entire country. I'm not sure what you think is undemocratic about that.
|
On October 09 2013 02:43 Brobe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:32 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 02:27 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
There is a 90+% reelection rate for house members. Keep dreaming Because of a system so insane and undemocratic even china would have problems with it. The house has no responsibility to the American people. They represent a tiny subset of people that they themselves chose would represent them. How insane is that in a democracy. This stat is hilarious because in 2010 the House had its lowest reelection rate since 1970 at 85% and the main topic was stopping/repealing the ACA.
2010 was kind of an anomaly because in 2006 and 2008 a number of democrats were getting elected in districts that voted for bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008. Basically those red state democrats just ended up getting slaughtered. This is not the case with the current congress there are relatively few republicans from districts carried by Obama in 2008 or 2012
|
On October 09 2013 02:43 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:32 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 02:27 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 09 2013 02:23 JimSocks wrote:
meh. fuck it. repubs pretty much gonna lose seats in the house now next election. most ppl see through Cruz, aint no way dude can win 2016. political suicide cause you can't stand up to tea party nonsense.
There is a 90+% reelection rate for house members. Keep dreaming Because of a system so insane and undemocratic even china would have problems with it. The house has no responsibility to the American people. They represent a tiny subset of people that they themselves chose would represent them. How insane is that in a democracy. Not so insane considering many academics consider the modern American system to be a Polyarchy and not a democracy.
I was looking around on wikipedia and "Illiberal democracy" seems to fit as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy
|
If it were just "quibbling" then the administration wouldn't be going out of their way to blockade them. Obviously they feel they have something to gain by unnecessarily shutting these places down and trying to pin the blame on Republicans.
No. The quibbling was directed at you. The blame is on the Republicans because this is what a government shutdown means. If the Republicans wanted to force a shutdown, then that was their right; but now they actually have to deal with the fact that shutting down the government means shutting down stuff. It's not about whether some park, or whatever, generates money. They can't really turn around and say "Hey! Why are you shutting down stuff that we think you shouldn't shut down?"
Considering this entire shutdown was unnecessary, it's silly to say that any particular action of the Obama administration viz. carrying out the minutiae associated with that shutdown is unnecessary. Of course it's unnecessary. Everything about this situation is unnecessary! When the government shuts down, it isn't obligated to do anything (hence the term "shutdown"); that's what the Republicans were voting for.
You're right that the Democrats think the ACA is important. So important they are willing to go out of their way to cause maximum inconvenience and suffering to citizens in an attempt to force the budget through without compromise.
Right. Because shutting down the entire government (which, by the way, is what permits these decisions to begin with) is the pinnacle of altruism. Get real. The Republicans aren't looking for "compromise" in any real sense. They're looking for "don't pass the cornerstone of your platform." That's not compromise, at least not in the sense that it's likely to be successful. The Republicans need to come to terms with the fact that the ACA is a thing. It's been passed. This budget bullshit is just another maneuver in a frustrating long string of grandiose gestures designed to delay the bill as much as possible.
And don't even start about "oh they just wanted it to be postponed for a year." That's absolute nonsense, and you know it.
Individual members of the House get elected by a subset of the population, but the House as a whole represents the entire country. I'm not sure what you think is undemocratic about that.
It doesn't seem to end up being very representative, at least not in its current form (though this isn't unique to America).
|
There's also this thing about somewhat unnatural shape of the districts that results in strangely disproportional ratio of seats.
|
On October 09 2013 03:03 Talin wrote:
There's also this thing about somewhat unnatural shape of the districts that results in strangely disproportional ratio of seats.
Gerrymandering is increasing polarization of the country and allowing crazies to actually rise to prominent positions.
|
On October 09 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +If it were just "quibbling" then the administration wouldn't be going out of their way to blockade them. Obviously they feel they have something to gain by unnecessarily shutting these places down and trying to pin the blame on Republicans. No. The quibbling was directed at you. The blame is on the Republicans because this is what a government shutdown means. If the Republicans wanted to force a shutdown, then that was their right; but now they actually have to deal with the fact that shutting down the government means shutting down stuff. It's not about whether some park, or whatever, generates money. They can't really turn around and say "Hey! Why are you shutting down stuff that we think you shouldn't shut down?" Considering this entire shutdown was unnecessary, it's silly to say that any particular action of the Obama administration viz. carrying out the minutiae associated with that shutdown is unnecessary. Of course it's unnecessary. Everything about this situation is unnecessary! When the government shuts down, it isn't obligated to do anything (hence the term "shutdown"); that's what the Republicans were voting for. Show nested quote +You're right that the Democrats think the ACA is important. So important they are willing to go out of their way to cause maximum inconvenience and suffering to citizens in an attempt to force the budget through without compromise. Right. Because shutting down the entire government (which, by the way, is what permits these decisions to begin with) is the pinnacle of altruism. Get real. The Republicans aren't looking for "compromise" in any real sense. They're looking for "don't pass the cornerstone of your platform." That's not compromise, at least not in the sense that it's likely to be successful. The Republicans need to come to terms with the fact that the ACA is a thing. It's been passed. This budget bullshit is just another maneuver in a frustrating long string of grandiose gestures designed to delay the bill as much as possible. And don't even start about "oh they just wanted it to be postponed for a year." That's absolute nonsense, and you know it. Show nested quote +Individual members of the House get elected by a subset of the population, but the House as a whole represents the entire country. I'm not sure what you think is undemocratic about that. It doesn't seem to end up being very representative, at least not in its current form (though this isn't unique to America).
I don't think you understand what a government shutdown is. The purpose is to avoid any unnecessary spending due to lack of funding.
The Obama administration is spending taxpayer money to shut down privately run businesses and attractions which require zero federal funding.
To reiterate: these shutdowns are not a direct result of the budget not being passed. They can operate without an appropriations bill. They need no federal funding.
|
On October 09 2013 02:08 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:
shutting down some specific public services (that are not funded because of the Republicains) Here is a list of 38 shutdowns that are being done at expense to taxpayers, including places that do not require any federal funding. Some of them even pay money to the federal government, so blockading them and preventing them from doing business just makes budget issues worse. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Painhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
I´ve read the list. I think it´s disgusting that the Republicans accuse Obama for denying cancer-treatment for children. It´s the Republicans who is stopping the funding to NIH by refusing to put a bill to vote and who are trying to block ACA which would bring cancer treatment to ALL children, including those with preexisting conditions. The whole list is a political lie, the writer tries to push the blame for the effects of the shutdown over on the Democrats, and I don´t buy it for a second.
|
No... Shutdown = Shutdown.
Goverment has oversight over some park/whatever which is not "essential" = Park closed.
It does not matter if shutting it down actually costs more money than keeping it open. It just doesn't....
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
It's a fucking Breitbart.com link, what did you expect? 
|
|
|
On October 09 2013 03:33 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:08 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:
shutting down some specific public services (that are not funded because of the Republicains) Here is a list of 38 shutdowns that are being done at expense to taxpayers, including places that do not require any federal funding. Some of them even pay money to the federal government, so blockading them and preventing them from doing business just makes budget issues worse. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Painhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown I´ve read the list. I think it´s disgusting that the Republicans accuse Obama for denying cancer-treatment for children. It´s the Republicans who is stopping the funding to NIH by refusing to put a bill to vote and who are trying to block ACA which would bring cancer treatment to ALL children, including those with preexisting conditions. The whole list is a political lie, the writer tries to push the blame for the effects of the shutdown over on the Democrats, and I don´t buy it for a second.
"The GOP have agreed to a compromise by funding part of the government, including the National Institutes of Health, which offers children with cancer last-chance experimental treatment. Obama has threatened to veto this funding."
|
On October 09 2013 03:34 Velr wrote:
No... Shutdown = Shutdown.
Goverment has oversight over some park/whatever which is not "essential" = Park closed.
It does not matter if shutting it down actually costs more money than keeping it open. It just doesn't....
Of course it matters! Are you nuts?
Shutting down is a funding issue. It's not some contingency plan to put the screws to Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
