EPT
.US government shutdown - Page 77
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Should seniors and disabled Americans really be worried about their benefits if the U.S. government runs out of borrowing capacity later this month? The answer is yes - but only if the Obama administration insists on making Social Security a pawn in the debt ceiling battle. And that's a move it has no business making. Social Security currently has a surplus of $2.7 trillion. This year it is on track to take in $38.8 billion more in revenue than it will pay out, according to the forecast of the program's trustees. These funds sit in something called the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). While SSTF funds can be used only for Social Security, the fund operates in a way that could leave it vulnerable in the event of a government default. To fund benefit payments every month, the Social Security Administration redeems bonds from the SSTF with the shortest maturity, receiving principal plus interest. The government finances Social Security redemptions by issuing new general-issue Treasury bonds. This is the nub of a key right-wing critique of Social Security - namely, that it's a Ponzi scheme, and that it has no real assets. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality: The SSTF actually is one of the largest creditors of the U.S. Treasury - right up there with China and Japan, which together hold $2.4 trillion in Treasury debt. The system was designed this way to ensure that Social Security would be invested only in the world's - ahem - safest instrument: paper issued by the U.S. Treasury. The special-issue Treasury notes are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, and the system works fine when the Treasury has the power to issue debt to fund Social Security's bond redemptions. Even if the government hits the debt ceiling, there's a viable option for keeping Social Security benefits flowing without affecting the federal debt situation in any meaningful way. The Social Security trustees could exercise their right to cash in as many Social Security bonds as they need to make benefit payments for the foreseeable future. Every dollar of principal (but not interest) that the federal government pays back to Social Security would reduce the government's total indebtedness, making room to borrow more from the general public to fund Social Security redemptions. The total amount of federal debt would be unchanged, and wouldn't reduce funds available for other government operations. Source | ||
|
Nick Drake
76 Posts
The most egregious examples are the closing of outdoor parks and monuments, the sort of things which are open 24 hours a day 365 days a year because they are just sitting objects or locations that people can look at and require no staff or expenditures of any kind. In fact, the government is losing more money by paying people to put up blockades, cones, and signs, then if they were to just leave the sites be. Take Gettysburg. For those who don't know, it is an old civil war site, mostly made up of fields, hills, rocks... you get the picture, not many actual services which must be paid for. It was closed after the government shutdown, this despite the fact that the park is actually profitable! Why would the government shut down a site which is a source of revenue? "Their bus driver took them along roads that are still open, like Emittsburg Road, but Thomas said he was shooed by park police when he stopped to give passengers a view." Park police still present, but they won't let a bus stop and take a look? Wonder why. "We traveled through West Virginia today and were supposed to stop to see the New River Gorge Bridge, but since it's part of the National Park Service we couldn't even get out and walk to a viewing platform to look at the gorge. It's out in the open and doesn't take any manpower to view the scenery, but it was closed." Also Mount Rushmore. It is a huge monument in the mountains. You can see it for miles. On the roads there are even various spots you can pull off to view it from a distance. Well, someone was paid to go out and put orange cones on these random road shoulders for no reason at all other than to remind people "oh ya, the government is shut down, I hate those Republicans." Well, there is one group of people who don't put up with this kind of bullshit. Veterans stormed the closed World War II Memorial, pushing barricades out of their way to pay homage to the dead. It was a beautiful act of civil disobedience, but the sort of thing the timid public at large is becoming more and more unwilling to engage in. The government has gone through 17 shutdowns in the last 30 years and these sorts of things have never happened in any of those shutdowns. This stuff is a conscious decision by the administration to punish people and make life difficult. Going out of their way to close open air monuments which are open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, there are stories of people being thrown out of homes that they owned because they happened to be on leased land, there are privately owned establishments being ordered to close simply because they are on leased forest service land. This is all orchestrated to turn up political heat to get their way without compromising or negotiating anything in the spending plans. They pulled the same sort of bullshit during sequestration, turning children away from the White House tours for example, despite the fact that sequestration didn't even cut spending, it simply cut the increase in spending. We are supposed to believe in this massive bloated government you can't find 18% to take a break? That's all the shutdown is by the way, 18%. That doesn't even qualify as a "shutdown" in my book. Not to mention this 18% furloughed work force all retain their jobs and will even receive back pay for their time off when this is all over. It's a charade all the way through. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning WASHINGTON — Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama’s health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan. ... A defunding “tool kit” created in early September included talking points for the question, “What happens when you shut down the government and you are blamed for it?” The suggested answer was the one House Republicans give today: “We are simply calling to fund the entire government except for the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare.” The whole article is worth a read. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On October 09 2013 10:11 Nick Drake wrote: The government is doing everything they can think of to make sure the 18% government "shutdown" is painful for the general public, just to send a message to the public that they don't work for us, we work for them, and if we ever threaten their income again we will suffer for it. The most egregious examples are the closing of outdoor parks and monuments, the sort of things which are open 24 hours a day 365 days a year because they are just sitting objects or locations that people can look at and require no staff or expenditures of any kind. In fact, the government is losing more money by paying people to put up blockades, cones, and signs, then if they were to just leave the sites be. Take Gettysburg. For those who don't know, it is an old civil war site, mostly made up of fields, hills, rocks... you get the picture, not many actual services which must be paid for. It was closed after the government shutdown, this despite the fact that the park is actually profitable! Why would the government shut down a site which is a source of revenue? "Their bus driver took them along roads that are still open, like Emittsburg Road, but Thomas said he was shooed by park police when he stopped to give passengers a view." Park police still present, but they won't let a bus stop and take a look? Wonder why. "We traveled through West Virginia today and were supposed to stop to see the New River Gorge Bridge, but since it's part of the National Park Service we couldn't even get out and walk to a viewing platform to look at the gorge. It's out in the open and doesn't take any manpower to view the scenery, but it was closed." Also Mount Rushmore. It is a huge monument in the mountains. You can see it for miles. On the roads there are even various spots you can pull off to view it from a distance. Well, someone was paid to go out and put orange cones on these random road shoulders for no reason at all other than to remind people "oh ya, the government is shut down, I hate those Republicans." Well, there is one group of people who don't put up with this kind of bullshit. Veterans stormed the closed World War II Memorial, pushing barricades out of their way to pay homage to the dead. It was a beautiful act of civil disobedience, but the sort of thing the timid public at large is becoming more and more unwilling to engage in. The government has gone through 17 shutdowns in the last 30 years and these sorts of things have never happened in any of those shutdowns. This stuff is a conscious decision by the administration to punish people and make life difficult. Going out of their way to close open air monuments which are open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, there are stories of people being thrown out of homes that they owned because they happened to be on leased land, there are privately owned establishments being ordered to close simply because they are on leased forest service land. This is all orchestrated to turn up political heat to get their way without compromising or negotiating anything in the spending plans. They pulled the same sort of bullshit during sequestration, turning children away from the White House tours for example, despite the fact that sequestration didn't even cut spending, it simply cut the increase in spending. We are supposed to believe in this massive bloated government you can't find 18% to take a break? That's all the shutdown is by the way, 18%. That doesn't even qualify as a "shutdown" in my book. Not to mention this 18% furloughed work force all retain their jobs and will even receive back pay for their time off when this is all over. It's a charade all the way through. As far as I'm concerned, it is quite simple: if you have any desire not to see federal-run, federal-staffed, or federal-funded parks close, you have two choices. 1) Do not shut down the United States government. 2) Find someone else to run the damn park; don't expect the United States government to do it for you when you're not even willing to permit said government to operate, without harassing it with random shutdowns because your political agenda isn't going like you'd planned in 2008. In other words, you can pick up your own damn trash, or you can ask someone else to do it for you - but don't expect them to do it without pay, even if theoretically they could, even if they did before. You may not know exactly what it costs them to do it, or what the long term consequences will be. Whether or not the park is normally profitable or subsidized by the federal government is irrelevant, as this is a *legal* issue and not a practical one. The people told to keep coming in to work are, by and large, those without whom people might die (air traffic controllers). Or without whom buildings might fall down, or prisons go unguarded, or various other immediate crises that would make things much much worse. Now, if there were some way to ensure the consequences fell only upon the heads of the people who wanted the damn shutdown in the first place, and enabled it by voting in politicians who courted it, I'd be sorely tempted to say "sure, let them deal with the consequences of their actions; it is a conservative truism that ideas have consequences, so let them experience consequences." But since that is not the case, and innocent people could come to grave, immediate harm if these vital positions were not filled... yeah. The government writes rubber checks to keep them coming. Which it does NOT do for park service staff, again - regardless of whether or not the park makes money. If you resent Obama's decision not to write rubber checks to fund the park service, reflect that the park service is blatantly a luxury. Many other things the government can't do are NOT luxuries, certainly not for the people most directly impacted. My guess as to why parks are being shutdown the way they are is as follows. The Park Service's handful of essential employees (i.e. the ones expected to keep working without pay during a shutdown) were given a directive "close down all our facilities that we are responsible for." That includes the ones that are obviously entirely Park Service operations. Like Yellowstone National Park, which is open air but which is policed, patrolled, and maintained entirely by the Park Service. Without the Park Service employees on staff there, there's no one to stop hunters from killing the animals. There's no one to stop people from vandalizing or pillaging the buildings within the park (restrooms, gift shops, etc.). There's no one to do search and rescue for lost travelers who wander up into the hills. It would be grossly irresponsible to allow this open air national park to remain open during the shutdown. But the same logic applies to pieces of a larger facility- if a parking lot is maintained by the Park Service, then it cannot reasonably be open when the Park Service lacks the ability to do anything about it. If some disaster damages the lot, who is responsible? If some criminal starts sabotaging the cars, who is responsible? There's a reason we have park agencies in the first place- someone has to act as custodian of the facility, even if it's something as benign and low-maintenance as a field of grass. Now, if we knew the shutdown would only last a few days, perhaps the Park Service might be able to say 'Okay, no harm done if the parking lot is unmonitored for a few days,' and keep it open. We have no assurance of that. The shutdown will last as long as the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats choose to permit it to last, and the Park Service has no control over either of those parties. For all we know, the shutdown could last for months. It could last through the winter- when parking lots in most of the US will need continuous upkeep (snowplowing and salting) to remain usable... and when the Park Service will not be able to provide those services. Heck, in some parts of America it's already started snowing. The shutdown did nothing to prevent blizzards from falling on parking lots in the Great Plains. And it could go longer. Hell, the shutdown could even last until the next election, at least in principle. If National Park Service facilities aren't closed down now, at the start of the shutdown, then pray tell, when can they be shut down? | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On October 09 2013 10:31 Funnytoss wrote: As far as I'm concerned, it is quite simple: if you have any desire not to see federal-run, federal-staffed, or federal-funded parks close, you have two choices. 1) Do not shut down the United States government. 2) Find someone else to run the damn park; don't expect the United States government to do it for you when you're not even willing to permit said government to operate, without harassing it with random shutdowns because your political agenda isn't going like you'd planned in 2008. In other words, you can pick up your own damn trash, or you can ask someone else to do it for you - but don't expect them to do it without pay, even if theoretically they could, even if they did before. You may not know exactly what it costs them to do it, or what the long term consequences will be. Whether or not the park is normally profitable or subsidized by the federal government is irrelevant, as this is a *legal* issue and not a practical one. The people told to keep coming in to work are, by and large, those without whom people might die (air traffic controllers). Or without whom buildings might fall down, or prisons go unguarded, or various other immediate crises that would make things much much worse. Now, if there were some way to ensure the consequences fell only upon the heads of the people who wanted the damn shutdown in the first place, and enabled it by voting in politicians who courted it, I'd be sorely tempted to say "sure, let them deal with the consequences of their actions; it is a conservative truism that ideas have consequences, so let them experience consequences." But since that is not the case, and innocent people could come to grave, immediate harm if these vital positions were not filled... yeah. The government writes rubber checks to keep them coming. Which it does NOT do for park service staff, again - regardless of whether or not the park makes money. If you resent Obama's decision not to write rubber checks to fund the park service, reflect that the park service is blatantly a luxury. Many other things the government can't do are NOT luxuries, certainly not for the people most directly impacted. My guess as to why parks are being shutdown the way they are is as follows. The Park Service's handful of essential employees (i.e. the ones expected to keep working without pay during a shutdown) were given a directive "close down all our facilities that we are responsible for." That includes the ones that are obviously entirely Park Service operations. Like Yellowstone National Park, which is open air but which is policed, patrolled, and maintained entirely by the Park Service. Without the Park Service employees on staff there, there's no one to stop hunters from killing the animals. There's no one to stop people from vandalizing or pillaging the buildings within the park (restrooms, gift shops, etc.). There's no one to do search and rescue for lost travelers who wander up into the hills. It would be grossly irresponsible to allow this open air national park to remain open during the shutdown. But the same logic applies to pieces of a larger facility- if a parking lot is maintained by the Park Service, then it cannot reasonably be open when the Park Service lacks the ability to do anything about it. If some disaster damages the lot, who is responsible? If some criminal starts sabotaging the cars, who is responsible? There's a reason we have park agencies in the first place- someone has to act as custodian of the facility, even if it's something as benign and low-maintenance as a field of grass. Now, if we knew the shutdown would only last a few days, perhaps the Park Service might be able to say 'Okay, no harm done if the parking lot is unmonitored for a few days,' and keep it open. We have no assurance of that. The shutdown will last as long as the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats choose to permit it to last, and the Park Service has no control over either of those parties. For all we know, the shutdown could last for months. It could last through the winter- when parking lots in most of the US will need continuous upkeep (snowplowing and salting) to remain usable... and when the Park Service will not be able to provide those services. Heck, in some parts of America it's already started snowing. The shutdown did nothing to prevent blizzards from falling on parking lots in the Great Plains. And it could go longer. Hell, the shutdown could even last until the next election, at least in principle. If National Park Service facilities aren't closed down now, at the start of the shutdown, then pray tell, when can they be shut down? That's a very good post. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
Is it the case that Republicans don't want to help the poor who lack healthcare insurance under the current system because they are largely Democrat voters? | ||
|
Jisall
United States2054 Posts
On October 09 2013 10:19 Mohdoo wrote: I hope this article can help alleviate some of the confusion some people have. I've noticed that some people don't believe republicans are at fault, so hopefully this clears that up: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html The whole article is worth a read. NYTimes is a left-leaning paper. Can't really take them at their word. On October 09 2013 10:44 revel8 wrote: Does anyone know whether most of those Americans without healthcare insurance are Democrats or Republicans? Is it the case that Republicans don't want to help the poor who lack healthcare insurance under the current system because they are largely Democrat voters? Republicans don't want obamacare implemented because they believe that insurance premiums will go up for everybody, and it will bankrupt many small business's. It will hurt more people then it will help. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On October 09 2013 10:51 Jisall wrote: NYTimes is a left-leaning paper. Can't really take them at their word. Republicans don't want obamacare implemented because they believe that insurance premiums will go up for everybody, and it will bankrupt many small business's. It will hurt more people then it will help. Its not "their word" when they are quoting and citing confirmed events. Their interpretation is one thing, but what makes this so certain are the things that aren't "their word". Did you read the article? Its extremely clear. | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
Essentially Democrats have lost on most fronts despite controlling the Senate and having a Democrat as a President. Left-controlled media does not tell about it, because they don't want President Obama to look either incompetent or a turncoat caving in to Republican demands so completely as to accept Ryan's budget and then accept even larger spending cuts on top of it (which goes against a Democratic party policy). Right-wing media does not discuss it, because they think they can get even more. | ||
|
norjoncal
89 Posts
On October 09 2013 10:11 Nick Drake wrote: The government is doing everything they can think of to make sure the 18% government "shutdown" is painful for the general public, just to send a message to the public that they don't work for us, we work for them, and if we ever threaten their income again we will suffer for it. The most egregious examples are the closing of outdoor parks and monuments, the sort of things which are open 24 hours a day 365 days a year because they are just sitting objects or locations that people can look at and require no staff or expenditures of any kind. In fact, the government is losing more money by paying people to put up blockades, cones, and signs, then if they were to just leave the sites be. Take Gettysburg. For those who don't know, it is an old civil war site, mostly made up of fields, hills, rocks... you get the picture, not many actual services which must be paid for. It was closed after the government shutdown, this despite the fact that the park is actually profitable! Why would the government shut down a site which is a source of revenue? "Their bus driver took them along roads that are still open, like Emittsburg Road, but Thomas said he was shooed by park police when he stopped to give passengers a view." Park police still present, but they won't let a bus stop and take a look? Wonder why. "We traveled through West Virginia today and were supposed to stop to see the New River Gorge Bridge, but since it's part of the National Park Service we couldn't even get out and walk to a viewing platform to look at the gorge. It's out in the open and doesn't take any manpower to view the scenery, but it was closed." Also Mount Rushmore. It is a huge monument in the mountains. You can see it for miles. On the roads there are even various spots you can pull off to view it from a distance. Well, someone was paid to go out and put orange cones on these random road shoulders for no reason at all other than to remind people "oh ya, the government is shut down, I hate those Republicans." Well, there is one group of people who don't put up with this kind of bullshit. Veterans stormed the closed World War II Memorial, pushing barricades out of their way to pay homage to the dead. It was a beautiful act of civil disobedience, but the sort of thing the timid public at large is becoming more and more unwilling to engage in. The government has gone through 17 shutdowns in the last 30 years and these sorts of things have never happened in any of those shutdowns. This stuff is a conscious decision by the administration to punish people and make life difficult. Going out of their way to close open air monuments which are open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, there are stories of people being thrown out of homes that they owned because they happened to be on leased land, there are privately owned establishments being ordered to close simply because they are on leased forest service land. This is all orchestrated to turn up political heat to get their way without compromising or negotiating anything in the spending plans. They pulled the same sort of bullshit during sequestration, turning children away from the White House tours for example, despite the fact that sequestration didn't even cut spending, it simply cut the increase in spending. We are supposed to believe in this massive bloated government you can't find 18% to take a break? That's all the shutdown is by the way, 18%. That doesn't even qualify as a "shutdown" in my book. Not to mention this 18% furloughed work force all retain their jobs and will even receive back pay for their time off when this is all over. It's a charade all the way through. Yeah this is some King George shit. You peasants can not use the King's road. The Dept of the Interior should be tried for treason. Some other examples of bullshit. The story should not be that WW2 vets took down the barricades.It is why are there barricades in the first place. Shutting down a private business in San Fransisco that sits on federal land. Kicking people out of their privately owned houses that sit on federal land. Trying to close off Mount Vernon (first presidents house) it is privately owned and funded. So what did they do block of the federally owned parking lot next door. Trying to close off part of the Ocean. But what if somebody twist their ankle. Well they walk to their car. Do people not realize how big Yellowstone is? It is over 3000 square miles.Almost 1.5 times bigger than the state of Delaware. Do you happened to be from CA? | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 09 2013 11:02 Alex1Sun wrote: Yep, this is actually a very interesting read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/02/the-shutdown-is-ridiculous-the-fight-just-below-the-surface-is-not/ Essentially Democrats have lost on most fronts despite controlling the Senate and having a Democrat as a President. Left-controlled Mass Media does not tell about it, because they don't want President Obama to look either incompetent or a turncoat caving in to Republican demands so completely as to accept Ryan's budget and then accept even larger spending cuts on top of it (which goes against a Democratic party policy). You'd find most liberals agree Obama has given up too much to Republicans. That's why it's funny to hear Republicans whining about Obama getting everything he wants and how he doesn't compromise with them. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On October 09 2013 11:22 Adila wrote: You'd find most liberals agree Obama has given up too much to Republicans. That's why it's funny to hear Republicans whining about Obama getting everything he wants and how he doesn't compromise with them. Ryan's budget, Romney's healthcare and yet, they say Dems won't compromise. Yes, for those to the left of the American political spectacle, it is akin to 'heads you win, tails I lose'. :D | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On October 09 2013 10:51 Jisall wrote: NYTimes is a left-leaning paper. Can't really take them at their word. Republicans don't want obamacare implemented because they believe that insurance premiums will go up for everybody, and it will bankrupt many small business's. It will hurt more people then it will help. Im sure this will get many responses but I would also like to say that I have not seen a single source claiming ACA will "hurt more than it helps". I don't even think that is the Republican party line. It is more like "the ACA would help millions if we could afford it". The ACA does reduce costs but not to what many Republicans would consider sustainable (hence the gateway to single payer line). Part of the humor in all this is that after all Republicans did to reduce the scope of "obamacare" most of them privately endorse much bigger programs (including many conservatives in this thread). | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On October 09 2013 11:36 Velocirapture wrote: Im sure this will get many responses but I would also like to say that I have not seen a single source claiming ACA will "hurt more than it helps". I don't even think that is the Republican party line. It is more like "the ACA would help millions if we could afford it". The ACA does reduce costs but not to what many Republicans would consider sustainable (hence the gateway to single payer line). Part of the humor in all this is that after all Republicans did to reduce the scope of "obamacare" most of them privately endorse much bigger programs (including many conservatives in this thread). Could you please elaborate on what "all Republicans did to reduce the scope of Obamacare" ? Republicans were completely shut out and not a single Republican vote was cast for it. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 09 2013 11:53 Saryph wrote: The use of the republicans' own blueprint for healthcare reform from a decade ago, as well as adding hundreds of Republican amendments to the ACA during committee mark-up between the two houses of Congress should count for something. Just because the republicans have decided to vote against everything Obama is in favor of, regardless of whether he did exactly what they asked for doesn't mean they were completely shut out. Yeah, there are some Republican ideas in the ACA: A new computer analysis counts the GOP policy ideas that overlap with other bills that made it into the law: 3% from the House and 8% from the Senate. In fact, when "mark-up" bills are excluded—basically, amendments and legislative re-writes—11% and 28% of policy ideas from Congressional and Senate Republicans, respectively, align. Link | ||
|
omnic
United States188 Posts
On October 08 2013 23:02 Alex1Sun wrote: Thanks for your answer Omnic, it is very well written and not offensive in the slightest. I agree with most of what you said here, however why do you think that President Obama willingly hurting American people in order to hurt the Republican party is so unbelievable? Democrat supporters seem to believe that the Tea Party is willingly hurting American people in order to hurt the Democrats (and not to fix things as the Tea party claims). Why would President Obama be exempt from being a suspect as well? Again, I am not accusing anybody here, I am merely speculating and trying to understand. The have been a number of posts here that tried to refute my poorly worded hypothesis, however nobody seemed to challenge the following post by Ghanburighan. What do you think about it? By the way Ghanburighan thanks a lot for your opinion. I would really like to see what other have to say here. Finally got home to and i'm ready to reply to this. i'm going to break my reaction into a few seperate parts. The very beginning of this post starts by claiming that your idea is actually right and claims that its a theory accepted by analysts once you "put some meat on the bones of that statement.". It doesn't cite any creditable analysts or even puts "some meat on the bones of that statement.". The content of the rest of his post does absolutely nothing to provide any information that this claim is correct besides the same type of circumstantial evidence that you provided in your very first post. None of what follows is any sort of real evidence that supports the idea that Obama or the dems have manipulated republicans into acting this way. I know it's tempting to ignore this because he's agreeing with you but I suggest that you don't leave your critical faculties at the door just because somebody isn't arguing with you. The reason why you should do this is because if they are wrong they weaken your position and arguments on a subject, and if they are right then you better understand and thus strengthen your own arguments and resolve. Is passing a budget important? Yes. Can republicans use it as a way to try to get what they want purely because its important and they have the ability to? Sure. Does that in ANY way suggest it's the right thing to do? Lets apply the same type of might equals right mentality to war. Chemical and biological weapons if used correctly could be pretty damn effective and that's going to become the case even more so over time. Should we start trying to weaponize the aids virus just because we can? If not why? Why is it that in one case the power to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's acceptable to do so while in another instance it's treated as if it alone is reason enough. The second part of this post is biased at best and misinformation at worst. Don't take my word for it. Do a bit of research on what the republicans are actually asking in regards to Obama care and make your own opinion. If you want to take anything meaningful out of this exchange you're going to have to put in the effort to actually look at what is being proposed by both sides. Anything I could say on the subject directly can easily be discarded under the guise that it's all a PR campaign to make the republicans look like the bad guys. (Notice how both sides are pointing fingers? I would suggest that if you have zero information and have 2 people telling you conflicting stories that you should investigate further on your own because investing things while under the pretense of either side of the argument can distort as well as guide your conclusions. The problem is you can't be sure which path you're following. Consider this: watch from 0:00-1:14 this same line of logic applies to how you see the world politically. The third part of this post is split so let me separate these parts and respond to them It's half calling out Kwark for calling republicans ideological assholes. I agree it's rude I don't particularly care about this probably because the internet is going to have a fair bit of name calling during arguments. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape but I have no problem with him calling out Kwark for what he did. The second part then goes on to say that your position is actually sound but merely worded poorly and explained poorly. All he's doing here is saying he agrees with you. He hasn't actually provided anything to talk about but he said that your argument was sound. Saying an argument is sound basically means it's conclusion has to be correct and not in just a "it could be right" type of way.If it's a sound argument then the conclusion HAS to be right. I don't want to go into why this is so i'll just give you a wiki and you can enjoy it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness I'm going to flat out dismiss that your argument was sound. Your argument was your opinion. It was based on things you inferred which were based on circumstantial evidence part of which relied on circular logic. Sound arguments are not formed in this way. Sound arguments are not presented in this way. There is nothing that shows the premise that you gave for your reasoning can only logically lead to that conclusion which is a requirement for an argument to be valid and validity is a requirement for something to be considered to be "sound". Find anybody that's taken Philosophy 101 and they'll probably talk your ear off about this sort of thing. To be frank I have a bigger problem with Ghanburighan trying to say what you said was sound than Kwark calling people names. p.s. To clarify why I feel that way is this: all I can say is that Kwarks use of name calling might hurt somebodies feeling but besides that it isn't going to do anything. Saying that an argument is sound when it isn't is basically just spreading misinformation which is the worst thing that can happen in a thread like this. p.s.s. I'm sorry i'm being verbose in my posts i've never been adept at being concise. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On October 09 2013 11:44 Kaitlin wrote: Could you please elaborate on what "all Republicans did to reduce the scope of Obamacare" ? Republicans were completely shut out and not a single Republican vote was cast for it. What you described is the genius of the early Republican negotiating strategy. Democrats wanted a single payer government run healthcare program to operate in direct competition with an exchange of for-profit and non-profit healthcare plans offered by private industry. There was never any doubt that this was the ideal outcome of the left but Obama being naive as he was compromised on this desire by reaching back to old Republican proposals to build what he saw as a bipartisan plan. What this did was allow Republicans to redefine the spectrum. By making the ACA, a formerly right wing implementation of healthcare, the new left wing they are able to move even farther to the right without looking as crazy and still get what they actually wanted and then some. And all thanks to the silly idea that if you satisfy a left wing priority with right wing ideas we could skip the endless posturing and enjoy a win/win. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On October 09 2013 12:41 Velocirapture wrote: What you described is the genius of the early Republican negotiating strategy. Democrats wanted a single payer government run healthcare program to operate in direct competition with an exchange of for-profit and non-profit healthcare plans offered by private industry. There was never any doubt that this was the ideal outcome of the left but Obama being naive as he was compromised on this desire by reaching back to old Republican proposals to build what he saw as a bipartisan plan. What this did was allow Republicans to redefine the spectrum. By making the ACA, a formerly right wing implementation of healthcare, the new left wing they are able to move even farther to the right without looking as crazy and still get what they actually wanted and then some. And all thanks to the silly idea that if you satisfy a left wing priority with right wing ideas we could skip the endless posturing and enjoy a win/win. So essentially the Republican's are trying to turn it from a win/win into just a win for them? This reminds me of the board game Cosmic Encounter, where you can negotiate and form alliances and it is possible to have more than one player win the game. But it's also possible to pretend you are going to negotiate and just straight up win the encounter and hence the game. It's pretty funny to do, and it's a legit tactic because by negotiating you would be risking the other player do the same to you, but one thing is certain; whoever you screwed over will not be allying or negotiating with you for a long time, unless they absolutely have to. So assuming this is true (I really don't know enough to state that it is), I wouldn't expect the Democrats to be making many concessions for a while haha. | ||
| ||
