On October 09 2013 17:21 Belisarius wrote: I've been watching this, but I don't know enough about what's going on to have or voice an informed opinion.
However, my uninformed opinion is that your political system is bonkers.
This has happened over here in the past, and what we did (or the Commonwealth did) was dissolve both houses of parliament and call an immediate election, The goverment got funded in caretaker mode to avoid insane things like locking down of national parks, and the ensuing election was effectively a referendum on the issue in question.
...that seems to make a lot more sense than what you guys do...
The shutting down of National Parks is a politically vindictive move by the White House, not a necessity of what is occurring. Also, this is hardly a 'shutdown', since most Government agencies are running 100%. Besides, where are all the non-Americans at when Belgium was in 'shutdown' mode for YEARS.
On October 09 2013 17:21 Belisarius wrote: I've been watching this, but I don't know enough about what's going on to have or voice an informed opinion.
However, my uninformed opinion is that your political system is bonkers.
This has happened over here in the past, and what we did (or the Commonwealth did) was dissolve both houses of parliament and call an immediate election, The goverment got funded in caretaker mode to avoid insane things like locking down of national parks, and the ensuing election was effectively a referendum on the issue in question.
...that seems to make a lot more sense than what you guys do...
The shutting down of National Parks is a politically vindictive move by the White House, not a necessity of what is occurring. Also, this is hardly a 'shutdown', since most Government agencies are running 100%. Besides, where are all the non-Americans at when Belgium was in 'shutdown' mode for YEARS.
The thread title and the tons of non-essential service workers at home without pay disagree....
And someone else doing it doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
On October 03 2013 17:34 TyrantPotato wrote: Ill be brief.
The republicans are pathetic.
Why though?
It's the democrats fault. The repubs showed up to negotiate obamacare adjustments (making it fractionally less terrible), the democrats didn't even bother to show up because they're not even willing to discuss it and listen to what the repubs have to say (resulting in budget failing and govt shutdown). Imo this makes the Dems incredibly childish in addition to basically being all or nothing tyrants on a crusade to increase the size of the state at all costs.
they should not negociate anything, this have passed, name me only something terrible from the obamacare ? nothing.
stop to be brainwashed american people, the bill good, you should accept it, this will help you unless you got ALOT OF MONEY....the republicans are in the wrong.
im sure you dont even know what the obamare in reality, you are brainwashed by media .....the republicans want to change something who already passed and change how it funded... you CANT TRADE HERE, obama right.
would also add you guy are damn lucky to get someone like obama, yet you dont even understand or know what all the good thing he trying to do, everything he do media and way more stupid people make him look bad.
that not his FAULT for the closure ?? yeah realy, maybe that the republicans by trying something dirty in the first place no?
try to know what he trying to do at the start, he in the right....just like snowden a hero yet you make him look like a terrorist... what wrong with you people ???!!! wake UP
Terrible? Try increased taxation, mandate to purchase a good/service (automobile insurance extortion is bad enough), higher premiums, lower work weeks for some of the largest retail employers (cutting from 40 to under 30), etc. I'm sure the insurance companies are loving this though, as is the Government - increased revenue via fines, more IRS agents, mandated purchasing of Insurance companies offerings, etc. What's not to love in this totalitarian crap hole! Instead of introducing measures to actually lower costs like abolishing AMA monopoly and licensures to increase numbers of medical workers, allowing competition across state boundaries, abolishing taxation on things like health-savings accounts, ending the FDA which has artificially increased drug prices and the ridiculous patent/copyright systems that do likewise, and end the hundreds of thousands of insurance regulations that mandate price controls / discrimination non-sense, etc. we get the ACA written by insurance lobbyists. Sounds wonderful.
Insurance is supposed to cover risks, not subsidize lifestyles. I should be in my own bracket of potential risk not thrown into brackets with 80 year olds who are patronizing health services nearly daily. Anyways, we need to address why Health Care as a good/service costs so much, and for that we need to go back to the early 1900s when the Government began to intervene. You can actually google NY Times articles from the period of medical professionals complaining to the Government that they weren't getting paid enough so they needed them to introduce artificial scarcity and up the price. Well, seems they got their wish. By the way, the Government also killed out private mutual aid and introduced servile compliant Welfarism in its place. Boy, did we get screwed.
In case you're wondering about her credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart): Born in Detroit, Ruwart holds an undergraduate degree in biochemistry (BS, 1970), and a graduate degree in biophysics (PhD, 1974) from Michigan State University. After a brief term as an Assistant Professor of Surgery at St. Louis University Medical School, Ruwart spent 19 years as a pharmaceutical research scientist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals,[1] and has written extensively on the subjects of government regulation of the drug industry and on libertarian communication.
everything you say are WRONG, you are brainwashed poor man..... the increased tax, can you link it ? You only need to get an insurance ( like everyone should have ) and they will help you pay it if you gain not much money ( They got a program, you LOSS NOTHING , you gain everything when you need to go see a doctor.... ) that 33 % milions people this would help , who can't pay for it right now....
This would increase your quality of life like NOTHING ELSE before.... I'm sad you don't see that. Wake up man plz, that's for you ! what you list after are other thing who need to be done, but obama start in the right way, this got changed alot since 2008.... also that good to note that the law in 2008 got changed by the republicain many many time, that them who make it cost that much...( the cost was like the EU one at first ) .and yet you blame Obama... and the republicain blame obama too and now they ... WTF... im not writing anymore.. WAKE UP....
the lower work hour since I don't know what got nothing to do with this law... You are wrong, they are trying to create false reason and you are right into them....
look into the internet , READ, dont take fact from people even if they look good, THINK FOR YOURSELF, look at the LAW at first, READ WIKIPEDIA... look into stuft...
the law good, obama right, republicain are WRONG and should just shut up and stop the shut down, whine at them not at obama OMG.... what wrong with you people ???
On October 09 2013 17:21 Belisarius wrote: I've been watching this, but I don't know enough about what's going on to have or voice an informed opinion.
However, my uninformed opinion is that your political system is bonkers.
This has happened over here in the past, and what we did (or the Commonwealth did) was dissolve both houses of parliament and call an immediate election, The goverment got funded in caretaker mode to avoid insane things like locking down of national parks, and the ensuing election was effectively a referendum on the issue in question.
...that seems to make a lot more sense than what you guys do...
The shutting down of National Parks is a politically vindictive move by the White House, not a necessity of what is occurring. Also, this is hardly a 'shutdown', since most Government agencies are running 100%. Besides, where are all the non-Americans at when Belgium was in 'shutdown' mode for YEARS.
The thread title and the tons of non-essential service workers at home without pay disagree....
And someone else doing it doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
1) Is the Patriot Act, patriotic? No, then what a specious argument you bring with the idea that a title conveys truth. 2) Non-essential..one might wonder why Government marks expenditures for these non-essential jobs, but beside that point, notice I said most, and clearly most of the Government is not shutdown. The wars are trudging along, the NSA keeps on movin' abreast, the VA is doing its thing, the 50 million ABC agencies continue their daily drug raids, harassing of citizens, spying, and other Police-State activities. Of course, everyone pays attention only to the lowly Park Rangers and exclaims how bad this is!
Guess what, let us Americans deal with our own issues. Australia is fucked up enough, don't you have things to fix in your own house before barging in on others?
On October 03 2013 17:34 TyrantPotato wrote: Ill be brief.
The republicans are pathetic.
Why though?
It's the democrats fault. The repubs showed up to negotiate obamacare adjustments (making it fractionally less terrible), the democrats didn't even bother to show up because they're not even willing to discuss it and listen to what the repubs have to say (resulting in budget failing and govt shutdown). Imo this makes the Dems incredibly childish in addition to basically being all or nothing tyrants on a crusade to increase the size of the state at all costs.
they should not negociate anything, this have passed, name me only something terrible from the obamacare ? nothing.
stop to be brainwashed american people, the bill good, you should accept it, this will help you unless you got ALOT OF MONEY....the republicans are in the wrong.
im sure you dont even know what the obamare in reality, you are brainwashed by media .....the republicans want to change something who already passed and change how it funded... you CANT TRADE HERE, obama right.
would also add you guy are damn lucky to get someone like obama, yet you dont even understand or know what all the good thing he trying to do, everything he do media and way more stupid people make him look bad.
that not his FAULT for the closure ?? yeah realy, maybe that the republicans by trying something dirty in the first place no?
try to know what he trying to do at the start, he in the right....just like snowden a hero yet you make him look like a terrorist... what wrong with you people ???!!! wake UP
Terrible? Try increased taxation, mandate to purchase a good/service (automobile insurance extortion is bad enough), higher premiums, lower work weeks for some of the largest retail employers (cutting from 40 to under 30), etc. I'm sure the insurance companies are loving this though, as is the Government - increased revenue via fines, more IRS agents, mandated purchasing of Insurance companies offerings, etc. What's not to love in this totalitarian crap hole! Instead of introducing measures to actually lower costs like abolishing AMA monopoly and licensures to increase numbers of medical workers, allowing competition across state boundaries, abolishing taxation on things like health-savings accounts, ending the FDA which has artificially increased drug prices and the ridiculous patent/copyright systems that do likewise, and end the hundreds of thousands of insurance regulations that mandate price controls / discrimination non-sense, etc. we get the ACA written by insurance lobbyists. Sounds wonderful.
Insurance is supposed to cover risks, not subsidize lifestyles. I should be in my own bracket of potential risk not thrown into brackets with 80 year olds who are patronizing health services nearly daily. Anyways, we need to address why Health Care as a good/service costs so much, and for that we need to go back to the early 1900s when the Government began to intervene. You can actually google NY Times articles from the period of medical professionals complaining to the Government that they weren't getting paid enough so they needed them to introduce artificial scarcity and up the price. Well, seems they got their wish. By the way, the Government also killed out private mutual aid and introduced servile compliant Welfarism in its place. Boy, did we get screwed.
In case you're wondering about her credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart): Born in Detroit, Ruwart holds an undergraduate degree in biochemistry (BS, 1970), and a graduate degree in biophysics (PhD, 1974) from Michigan State University. After a brief term as an Assistant Professor of Surgery at St. Louis University Medical School, Ruwart spent 19 years as a pharmaceutical research scientist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals,[1] and has written extensively on the subjects of government regulation of the drug industry and on libertarian communication.
everything you say are WRONG, you are brainwashed poor man..... the increased tax, can you link it ? You only need to get an insurance ( like everyone should have ) and they will help you pay it if you gain not much money ( They got a program, you LOSS NOTHING , you gain everything when you need to go see a doctor.... ) that 33 % milions people this would help , who can't pay for it right now....
This would increase your quality of life like NOTHING ELSE before.... I'm sad you don't see that. Wake up man plz, that's for you ! what you list after are other thing who need to be done, but obama start in the right way, this got changed alot since 2008.... also that good to note that the law in 2008 got changed by the republicain many many time, that them who make it cost that much...( the cost was like the EU one at first ) .and yet you blame Obama... and the republicain blame obama too and now they ... WTF... im not writing anymore.. WAKE UP....
the lower work hour since I don't know what got nothing to do with this law... You are wrong, they are trying to create false reason and you are right into them....
look into the internet , READ, dont take fact from people even if they look good, THINK FOR YOURSELF, look at the LAW at first, READ WIKIPEDIA... look into stuft...
the law good, obama right, republicain are WRONG and should just shut up and stop the shut down, whine at them not at obama OMG.... what wrong with you people ???
You know it's bad when you have Statist Qubecois supporting Corporatist (read: Fascist) laws like the ACA. Yes, I am sure Government mandating to us the purchase of goods and services will bring nothing, but rainbows and lollipops. The fact is, the average persons premiums are going up at roughly a 70-80% clip. I mean fining someone for choosing not to purchase insurance is also wonderful. I bet King George is envious in his grave for not thinking to tax people for not purchasing tea errr healthcare.
For someone proclaiming brainwashing (what is this a vast libertarian conspiracy now...oh boy watch out for the Von Hayek, Mises, Richard Cobden and Henry Bright, and folks like Sheldon Richmann and Wendy McElroy!), perhaps you might want to do some fact-checking yourself instead of being a blindless cheerleader. Is there anything the State does that you disapprove of? I'm sure some more controlling and regulating of individuals lives would make you very happy. I hear free people are too scary, too much trouble, and such societies don't work. Best have our superiors to our living and choosing for us.
PS: Oh trust me I whine at the GOP and the Democrats the same, since they're 98% identical parties. The trifecta of dumb: Graham/McCain, Lieberman, Boxer/Feinstein.
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.
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?
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.
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.
After conceding my point about how the government works (surprise, it's the most basic idea ever). You're now supposed to answer that last question. But you evade it and give an analogy.
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.
If we argumentify this analogy, it comes out as: Might does not make right, we need to make a moral decision. Example, chemical warfare. But this does not apply to this case for several reasons: First, chemical and biological weapons were used actively, and remain used today. The reason why we say they are not to be used is because of international conventions not to use them. So it's not really a moral decision, it's maintaining international law.
This brings me to the general point, when dealing with laws, it doesn't make sense to talk about moral judgments beyond doing your duty. And the duty is in law. The congress is responsible for the budget and debt, in fact, it's the House more specifically. It's their duty to only pass budgets which they find reasonable. If they find the situation untenable, it is up to them to put a stop to it. And that's exactly what is happening now, just as it was happening in 2011, and countless times before in US history.
To argue why it's a wrong thing to do, morally, not to pass the budget, you will have to bring actual arguments (and not the "ACA is already law", etc). I won't put words into your mouth, but you did not actually argue your main point, i.e., why is it immoral for the Republicans to do their duty in Congress?
First off--well written and argumented. Thank you for that.
I'm not convinced that the case against republicans need be entirely on moral grounds--do we accept running the government as a legitimate bargaining chip? I don't think comparisons to hostage situations are entirely misguided. There's that famous quote by lincoln from his cooper union address:
On February 27, 1860 Rep. Abraham Lincoln said: Your [the south] purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events...But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
in the above case he was talking about southerners' threats to the union. Lincoln clearly rejected the terms of that "negotiation" and I would like to think he was vindicated in doing so. Though republicans are not trying to destroy the union, I think their efforts against the federal government here are comparable. I just don't think allowing this tactic is a good idea: it opens a dangerous precedent, allows a small minority (a quarter of one house) to control the government, creates instability, the list goes on.
Second, even if we assume that the only reason not to go forward with a shutdown like this is entirely moral, is that not enough? We expect our representatives in congress to make moral decisions all the time. Obviously the republicans are making a moral judgment, weighing the (alleged) potential harm of the ACA against the harm a shutdown would cause. I think, however, the moral reasoning here should be clear: the harm caused by the ACA is potential harm, harm that can be mitigated in the future if it indeed comes to pass. The government shut down is real, and immediate. It causes harm not only to federal workers, to vacationers, to those affected by food outbreaks, severe weather and c. but also by destroying confidence in the full faith and credit of the united states, in our ability to govern ourselves, and our strength as a reserve currency. Again, I think the moral judgement is clear.
On October 03 2013 17:34 TyrantPotato wrote: Ill be brief.
The republicans are pathetic.
Why though?
It's the democrats fault. The repubs showed up to negotiate obamacare adjustments (making it fractionally less terrible), the democrats didn't even bother to show up because they're not even willing to discuss it and listen to what the repubs have to say (resulting in budget failing and govt shutdown). Imo this makes the Dems incredibly childish in addition to basically being all or nothing tyrants on a crusade to increase the size of the state at all costs.
they should not negociate anything, this have passed, name me only something terrible from the obamacare ? nothing.
stop to be brainwashed american people, the bill good, you should accept it, this will help you unless you got ALOT OF MONEY....the republicans are in the wrong.
im sure you dont even know what the obamare in reality, you are brainwashed by media .....the republicans want to change something who already passed and change how it funded... you CANT TRADE HERE, obama right.
would also add you guy are damn lucky to get someone like obama, yet you dont even understand or know what all the good thing he trying to do, everything he do media and way more stupid people make him look bad.
that not his FAULT for the closure ?? yeah realy, maybe that the republicans by trying something dirty in the first place no?
try to know what he trying to do at the start, he in the right....just like snowden a hero yet you make him look like a terrorist... what wrong with you people ???!!! wake UP
Terrible? Try increased taxation, mandate to purchase a good/service (automobile insurance extortion is bad enough), higher premiums, lower work weeks for some of the largest retail employers (cutting from 40 to under 30), etc. I'm sure the insurance companies are loving this though, as is the Government - increased revenue via fines, more IRS agents, mandated purchasing of Insurance companies offerings, etc. What's not to love in this totalitarian crap hole! Instead of introducing measures to actually lower costs like abolishing AMA monopoly and licensures to increase numbers of medical workers, allowing competition across state boundaries, abolishing taxation on things like health-savings accounts, ending the FDA which has artificially increased drug prices and the ridiculous patent/copyright systems that do likewise, and end the hundreds of thousands of insurance regulations that mandate price controls / discrimination non-sense, etc. we get the ACA written by insurance lobbyists. Sounds wonderful.
Insurance is supposed to cover risks, not subsidize lifestyles. I should be in my own bracket of potential risk not thrown into brackets with 80 year olds who are patronizing health services nearly daily. Anyways, we need to address why Health Care as a good/service costs so much, and for that we need to go back to the early 1900s when the Government began to intervene. You can actually google NY Times articles from the period of medical professionals complaining to the Government that they weren't getting paid enough so they needed them to introduce artificial scarcity and up the price. Well, seems they got their wish. By the way, the Government also killed out private mutual aid and introduced servile compliant Welfarism in its place. Boy, did we get screwed.
In case you're wondering about her credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart): Born in Detroit, Ruwart holds an undergraduate degree in biochemistry (BS, 1970), and a graduate degree in biophysics (PhD, 1974) from Michigan State University. After a brief term as an Assistant Professor of Surgery at St. Louis University Medical School, Ruwart spent 19 years as a pharmaceutical research scientist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals,[1] and has written extensively on the subjects of government regulation of the drug industry and on libertarian communication.
everything you say are WRONG, you are brainwashed poor man..... the increased tax, can you link it ? You only need to get an insurance ( like everyone should have ) and they will help you pay it if you gain not much money ( They got a program, you LOSS NOTHING , you gain everything when you need to go see a doctor.... ) that 33 % milions people this would help , who can't pay for it right now....
This would increase your quality of life like NOTHING ELSE before.... I'm sad you don't see that. Wake up man plz, that's for you ! what you list after are other thing who need to be done, but obama start in the right way, this got changed alot since 2008.... also that good to note that the law in 2008 got changed by the republicain many many time, that them who make it cost that much...( the cost was like the EU one at first ) .and yet you blame Obama... and the republicain blame obama too and now they ... WTF... im not writing anymore.. WAKE UP....
the lower work hour since I don't know what got nothing to do with this law... You are wrong, they are trying to create false reason and you are right into them....
look into the internet , READ, dont take fact from people even if they look good, THINK FOR YOURSELF, look at the LAW at first, READ WIKIPEDIA... look into stuft...
the law good, obama right, republicain are WRONG and should just shut up and stop the shut down, whine at them not at obama OMG.... what wrong with you people ???
You know it's bad when you have Statist Qubecois supporting Corporatist (read: Fascist) laws like the ACA. Yes, I am sure Government mandating to us the purchase of goods and services will bring nothing, but rainbows and lollipops. The fact is, the average persons premiums are going up at roughly a 70-80% clip. I mean fining someone for choosing not to purchase insurance is also wonderful. I bet King George is envious in his grave for not thinking to tax people for not purchasing tea errr healthcare.
For someone proclaiming brainwashing (what is this a vast libertarian conspiracy now...oh boy watch out for the Von Hayek, Mises, Richard Cobden and Henry Bright, and folks like Sheldon Richmann and Wendy McElroy!), perhaps you might want to do some fact-checking yourself instead of being a blindless cheerleader. Is there anything the State does that you disapprove of? I'm sure some more controlling and regulating of individuals lives would make you very happy. I hear free people are too scary, too much trouble, and such societies don't work. Best have our superiors to our living and choosing for us.
PS: Oh trust me I whine at the GOP and the Democrats the same, since they're 98% identical parties. The trifecta of dumb: Graham/McCain, Lieberman, Boxer/Feinstein.
aca want to give you a health care like in canada ( aka we pay NOTHING... ) what wrong with you man, you tic to much on the mandatory insurance ( they got official one and HELP YOU PAY IF YOU CANT , that not much money too ) this would help about 33 millions in your country... yet you say that fascist and corpiratist... wow !!! im sad and amazed at the same time !! the republicains = FASCIST/CORPORATIST, they work not for you, they work for the 1 % of your nations.
obama try to do something amazing.... read about what he doing stop to write stuft and WAKE UP, find what the law in reality, you just give false lie who the republicains give you and take them for money....
about the last points..... im not doing blindless chearleading but the law he passed not bad ( it was better in 2008 before the republicains added so much shit into it.... like cost 2x more, + alot more shit so the 10% of your nations dont loss to much money...) but that still a move in the right way....
the state ( in quebec ) make stupid law, fuck the customer, most law are shit and only protect people who got alot of money.... yeah that pretty bad everywhere....the last one was for students bills to go schools , and we have failed... the cops was in the streets , people got hurts... you cant fuck with gouverment here either way....even when you are doing the ''right thing'' or are moraly right... they just dont fucking care.
im thinking the obama law = moraly right and the right thing. that only that you need to think or disagree... they are putting alot of lie on it for make it cloudy like they alway do... but yeah im pretty sure you get it.
was just trying to help, got a friend who live in usa, who loss his house because of healtcare, if he would have got something like we got in canada or the obamarace he would be fine right now and still got it, obama passed something not bad for improve people life....
and yes it passed, that a law right now, the republicain are just downright illegals for asking to change it more (they have fucked it enough already seriously, most bad stuft you say about it, that because the republicains added them )
and now they play double face and say they dont want it to pass because they care about the poor people......
Thank you, Parsistamon (cool name, I don't quite understand the reference, though).
I'm not committed to saying that the decision is moral, in fact, I'm quite opposed to this line of thinking in politics. In politics, one can act immorally as long as you do not lose support over it. It's candid, but true. You cannot act immorally and illegally, though. And duty plays a greater role.
So let's forget about the distinction and look at the actual reasons:
Dangerous precedent - There have been a large number of government shut-downs, a similar case was the argument over abortion in Medicaid from September 30th to October 13th, 1977. As the ban on abortions was lifted, congress didn't vote in a new budget until the ban was reinstated. The best case is the 1995 shutdown where Congress actually required a seven year balanced budget from Clinton (among other things). So to call it a precedent is unprecedented.
Allows a small minority (a quarter of one house) to control the government - that's not quite true, right? If the non-tea party Republicans and Democrats were to vote on a bill, it would pass easily. To blame this entirely on the tea party is not quite correct.
- Creates instability - that is unfortunate, and very much true. Especially with a default looming in the future. We are already feeling the pain on the stock market. But I won't say that budgets need to be passed no matter what's in it to please the stock markets. Sometimes we need to take the long term view so a few weeks of instability (especially this one which has not actually led to a massive run on the markets) is justifiable. If you want to expand on this point, I'd gladly look at it in detail.
- The list goes on - please add each argument in detail.
- The harm caused by the ACA is potential harm, harm that can be mitigated in the future if it indeed comes to pass. The government shut down is real, and immediate. - That's true, but the argument boils down to do things: a) when is the right time to address the problem? b) Who's to blame. On the first point, budget discussions and raising the debt ceiling are exactly the intended time to discuss long term budgeting concerns, hence the CBO released its new 10 year estimate right before the vote so that lawmakers know the consequences of the vote. Secondly, I'd say the blame is on both parties as the Republicans did offer a bill and negotiations which the Democrats rejected. While I don't think the Democrats should have accepted the bill, the lack of negotiations was strange and out of character compared to 2011. So to say that it's all Republican's doing, and that it was inevitable that a shutdown was going to happen is misguided.
- It causes harm not only to federal workers, - Technically federal workers get a holiday with backpay (the bill was already passed). It does harm things like research which is time-sensitive. But the job of the government isn't to give workers something to do, it's to get the job done.
- To vacationers - Absolutely agree, but the US is a big country, there's lots to do. Not a big deal. Also, not all of those sights had to be closed, as was explained at length earlier in the thread.
- To those affected by food outbreaks, severe weather - Could you elaborate on these?
- Destroying confidence in the full faith and credit of the united states - This is not actually the case quite yet, bonds are down a bit, yes. And China and Japan issued a warning on the default, but no harm has actually been done yet. A default WOULD be harmful but Obama has already signalled that he's willing to pass a temporary bill to avoid a default to give more tme for negotiations.
- In our ability to govern ourselves - Absolutely, yes. I agree. This is a major concern, especially after the Syria and fed chairman debacles. The US is seen by the laughing stock by China, Russia and other major players. This will have a major diplomatic effect, and slow down trade deals, and other negotiations. But to make the argument, we would need to put flesh on the bones of this argument to see the actual harms and to see if they outweigh future harms.
- Our strength as a reserve currency. This is the same argument as "instability" above with exactly the same harms.
So, no, the judgment is not clear. In fact, I'm clearly still leaning towards the shutdown being a good thing. But I wouldn't want to write too much before I give you a chance to write up the arguments in full details with preferably some quantified harms.
On October 09 2013 17:21 Belisarius wrote: I've been watching this, but I don't know enough about what's going on to have or voice an informed opinion.
However, my uninformed opinion is that your political system is bonkers.
This has happened over here in the past, and what we did (or the Commonwealth did) was dissolve both houses of parliament and call an immediate election, The goverment got funded in caretaker mode to avoid insane things like locking down of national parks, and the ensuing election was effectively a referendum on the issue in question.
...that seems to make a lot more sense than what you guys do...
The shutting down of National Parks is a politically vindictive move by the White House, not a necessity of what is occurring. Also, this is hardly a 'shutdown', since most Government agencies are running 100%. Besides, where are all the non-Americans at when Belgium was in 'shutdown' mode for YEARS.
Uh, Belgium wasn't in shutdown mode at all. The previous government was basically still operating normally as long as the new one hadn't been formed yet. The only thing is that they couldn't introduce and fund new major projects.
On October 09 2013 18:29 Ghanburighan wrote: Thank you, Parsistamon (cool name, I don't quite understand the reference, though).
I'm not committed to saying that the decision is moral, in fact, I'm quite opposed to this line of thinking in politics. In politics, one can act immorally as long as you do not lose support over it. It's candid, but true. You cannot act immorally and illegally, though. And duty plays a greater role.
It may be "true" that you "can" act immorally and get away with it, but that hardly seems like a desirable state of affairs...If we accept this as the status quo, how can we ever improve our political system? I don't have any real suggestions but the idea that politics is somehow amoral is misguided. I think you might be confusing morality in the sense bill clinton's sexual indiscretions (immoral, but didn't lose enough support to get impeached) and the kind of morality where lives and livelihoods are at stake. In the former case I can agree with you. However we need to hold our politicians accountable for moral questions of the latter sense.
So let's forget about the distinction and look at the actual reasons:
Dangerous precedent - There have been a large number of government shut-downs, a similar case was the argument over abortion in Medicaid from September 30th to October 13th, 1977. As the ban on abortions was lifted, congress didn't vote in a new budget until the ban was reinstated. The best case is the 1995 shutdown where Congress actually required a seven year balanced budget from Clinton (among other things). So to call it a precedent is unprecedented.
I don't think either of these cases is comparable. The 1977 shutdown is similar in that it was over an existing law, but the dispute concerned only a relatively minor change to one facet of that law, nothing like a the repeal or delay of its entirety. The 1995 shutdown was related to budgets, but not to existing legislature. These differences are crucial. I think my example of Lincoln, while in the other direction (i.e. greater severity), is more similar than any shutdowns of recent memory, yet you ignored this. There have been many instances in U.S. history where questions of how the country was to be governed were at stake, e.g. nullification controversies, national bank, all culminating in the civil war. We have pretty conclusively answered those questions. I think the country and the world have sided with lincoln here. What do you say to his reasoning?
Allows a small minority (a quarter of one house) to control the government - that's not quite true, right? If the non-tea party Republicans and Democrats were to vote on a bill, it would pass easily. To blame this entirely on the tea party is not quite correct.
Though I'm to tired (it's almost 6 am here...) to find citations, there have been many claims that, should a clean CR come to a vote, it would pass. We have one claim--John Boehner's--to the contrary, and he had no choice but to deny this state of affairs in order to preserve his bargaining power. So I think we really can say the Tea Party is in control. You might blame Boehner as well, but all that says is that he is being heavily pressured by the extreme right wing of his party. Bringing us, again, to the same conclusion--it's the tea party in control here.
- The harm caused by the ACA is potential harm, harm that can be mitigated in the future if it indeed comes to pass. The government shut down is real, and immediate. - That's true, but the argument boils down to do things: a) when is the right time to address the problem? b) Who's to blame. On the first point, budget discussions and raising the debt ceiling are exactly the intended time to discuss long term budgeting concerns, hence the CBO released its new 10 year estimate right before the vote so that lawmakers know the consequences of the vote. Secondly, I'd say the blame is on both parties as the Republicans did offer a bill and negotiations which the Democrats rejected. While I don't think the Democrats should have accepted the bill, the lack of negotiations was strange and out of character compared to 2011. So to say that it's all Republican's doing, and that it was inevitable that a shutdown was going to happen is misguided.
You ignore the fact that the senate has been trying to meet with the house about the budget for months now, and that a budget with substantial long term cuts to entitlements as part of the plan was already agreed upon, but Boehner failed to deliver the votes he promised for it. The point is that debates about the budget should have been happening (and have been happening, if only in a restricted manner) for a long time now. Yet the house chooses to create a crisis out of it by springing a bill defunding the ACA a week before the budget is due. Your assertion that the democrats not negotiating is "strange and out of character" rests, I think, on the belief that running the government is a legitimate bargaining chip. You can't have negotiations in good faith when one party is pointing a gun at the other under the table. And no, I don't think this metaphor is a great exaggeration.
From here on out you basically agree with my points about instability and confidence while trying to undermine my points about tangible harm the shutdown causes. I'll tackle the latter first: Obviously I'm not going to enumerate the agencies hurt and the people who are furloughed. I think it suffices to say that a substantial number of people are put under significant financial pressure because of this shutdown. It may be "temporary" but it's real. Furthermore, we don't know how hampered the government is in its capacity to "get the job done" until an occasion for failure arises--As someone said earlier in the thread, the successful functioning of the government is invisible. I mentioned food illness and weather because those were two facets that I saw personally--there is a currently an outbreak of salmonella that the FDA is unable properly manage (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/10/shutdown-salmonella/) and there was a recent spate of severe weather over the east coast with tornado watches over NYC and Philadelphia, among other places. Can you imagine the chaos of a tornado hit a major city? Who knows if the federal government would be able to handle that emergency. Do we really want to find out ? While government agencies may function with the bare minimum staff during times of inactivity, that doesn't mean they are able to adequately fulfill their functions.
While you may brush off instability as a major factor, I think it's folly to do so. Yes--bond rates remain mostly unchanged. That is because few think we are insane enough to actually implode. But every time an episode like this happens, the calculations happening in investors' heads change. Our credibility is eroded. The accretion of our budgetary crises in the collective consciousness is not trivial. You suggest we take the long view at the expense of "a few short weeks" of instability (unfortunately "a few short weeks" is all it took in 2008 to topple our financial system). The great negative effects of the ACA touted by Republicans are allegations over which there is much disagreement. The CBO claims the ACA would actually lower our deficits + Show Spoiler +
. People pointing to rising premiums are also seeing only short term effects. And again, if it turns out the bill is malfunctioning, we can always take corrective action. So take the long view--damage to the united states' credibility is a long-term proposition, while damage done by the ACA is not necessarily so and may in fact be a long-term boon to our finances in light of the fact that so much of our GDP is tied up in clearly unnecessary health care expenditures.
You asked for quantified harms--again its six in the morning here and I don't exactly feel like writing up a research paper. But the points I bring up are certainly legitimate without hard numbers to back them up. And while the judgment may not be crystal clear, I think the argument is in my favor.
On October 09 2013 17:21 Belisarius wrote: I've been watching this, but I don't know enough about what's going on to have or voice an informed opinion.
However, my uninformed opinion is that your political system is bonkers.
This has happened over here in the past, and what we did (or the Commonwealth did) was dissolve both houses of parliament and call an immediate election, The goverment got funded in caretaker mode to avoid insane things like locking down of national parks, and the ensuing election was effectively a referendum on the issue in question.
...that seems to make a lot more sense than what you guys do...
The shutting down of National Parks is a politically vindictive move by the White House, not a necessity of what is occurring. Also, this is hardly a 'shutdown', since most Government agencies are running 100%. Besides, where are all the non-Americans at when Belgium was in 'shutdown' mode for YEARS.
Uh, Belgium wasn't in shutdown mode at all. The previous government was basically still operating normally as long as the new one hadn't been formed yet. The only thing is that they couldn't introduce and fund new major projects.
Most European democracies have measures in place to prevent something like this from happening. Germany also won't get a budget done this year, but nobody cares as the government can fund itself via decree on the same level as the last budget that was passed.
On October 09 2013 17:21 Belisarius wrote: I've been watching this, but I don't know enough about what's going on to have or voice an informed opinion.
However, my uninformed opinion is that your political system is bonkers.
This has happened over here in the past, and what we did (or the Commonwealth did) was dissolve both houses of parliament and call an immediate election, The goverment got funded in caretaker mode to avoid insane things like locking down of national parks, and the ensuing election was effectively a referendum on the issue in question.
...that seems to make a lot more sense than what you guys do...
The shutting down of National Parks is a politically vindictive move by the White House, not a necessity of what is occurring. Also, this is hardly a 'shutdown', since most Government agencies are running 100%. Besides, where are all the non-Americans at when Belgium was in 'shutdown' mode for YEARS.
Uh, Belgium wasn't in shutdown mode at all. The previous government was basically still operating normally as long as the new one hadn't been formed yet. The only thing is that they couldn't introduce and fund new major projects.
Most European democracies have measures in place to prevent something like this from happening. Germany also won't get a budget done this year, but nobody cares as the government can fund itself via decree on the same level as the last budget that was passed.
Add to the list that there was never a real danger of bankruptcy due to some internal, polticial shenanigans about something every other civilized country already seems to have in effect, which could potentially cause a global, economic crisis.
On October 09 2013 17:21 Belisarius wrote: I've been watching this, but I don't know enough about what's going on to have or voice an informed opinion.
However, my uninformed opinion is that your political system is bonkers.
This has happened over here in the past, and what we did (or the Commonwealth did) was dissolve both houses of parliament and call an immediate election, The goverment got funded in caretaker mode to avoid insane things like locking down of national parks, and the ensuing election was effectively a referendum on the issue in question.
...that seems to make a lot more sense than what you guys do...
The shutting down of National Parks is a politically vindictive move by the White House, not a necessity of what is occurring. Also, this is hardly a 'shutdown', since most Government agencies are running 100%. Besides, where are all the non-Americans at when Belgium was in 'shutdown' mode for YEARS.
Uh, Belgium wasn't in shutdown mode at all. The previous government was basically still operating normally as long as the new one hadn't been formed yet. The only thing is that they couldn't introduce and fund new major projects.
He has absolutely no idea how other countries work.
On October 03 2013 17:34 TyrantPotato wrote: Ill be brief.
The republicans are pathetic.
Why though?
It's the democrats fault. The repubs showed up to negotiate obamacare adjustments (making it fractionally less terrible), the democrats didn't even bother to show up because they're not even willing to discuss it and listen to what the repubs have to say (resulting in budget failing and govt shutdown). Imo this makes the Dems incredibly childish in addition to basically being all or nothing tyrants on a crusade to increase the size of the state at all costs.
they should not negociate anything, this have passed, name me only something terrible from the obamacare ? nothing.
stop to be brainwashed american people, the bill good, you should accept it, this will help you unless you got ALOT OF MONEY....the republicans are in the wrong.
im sure you dont even know what the obamare in reality, you are brainwashed by media .....the republicans want to change something who already passed and change how it funded... you CANT TRADE HERE, obama right.
would also add you guy are damn lucky to get someone like obama, yet you dont even understand or know what all the good thing he trying to do, everything he do media and way more stupid people make him look bad.
that not his FAULT for the closure ?? yeah realy, maybe that the republicans by trying something dirty in the first place no?
try to know what he trying to do at the start, he in the right....just like snowden a hero yet you make him look like a terrorist... what wrong with you people ???!!! wake UP
Terrible? Try increased taxation, mandate to purchase a good/service (automobile insurance extortion is bad enough), higher premiums, lower work weeks for some of the largest retail employers (cutting from 40 to under 30), etc. I'm sure the insurance companies are loving this though, as is the Government - increased revenue via fines, more IRS agents, mandated purchasing of Insurance companies offerings, etc. What's not to love in this totalitarian crap hole! Instead of introducing measures to actually lower costs like abolishing AMA monopoly and licensures to increase numbers of medical workers, allowing competition across state boundaries, abolishing taxation on things like health-savings accounts, ending the FDA which has artificially increased drug prices and the ridiculous patent/copyright systems that do likewise, and end the hundreds of thousands of insurance regulations that mandate price controls / discrimination non-sense, etc. we get the ACA written by insurance lobbyists. Sounds wonderful.
Insurance is supposed to cover risks, not subsidize lifestyles. I should be in my own bracket of potential risk not thrown into brackets with 80 year olds who are patronizing health services nearly daily. Anyways, we need to address why Health Care as a good/service costs so much, and for that we need to go back to the early 1900s when the Government began to intervene. You can actually google NY Times articles from the period of medical professionals complaining to the Government that they weren't getting paid enough so they needed them to introduce artificial scarcity and up the price. Well, seems they got their wish. By the way, the Government also killed out private mutual aid and introduced servile compliant Welfarism in its place. Boy, did we get screwed.
In case you're wondering about her credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart): Born in Detroit, Ruwart holds an undergraduate degree in biochemistry (BS, 1970), and a graduate degree in biophysics (PhD, 1974) from Michigan State University. After a brief term as an Assistant Professor of Surgery at St. Louis University Medical School, Ruwart spent 19 years as a pharmaceutical research scientist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals,[1] and has written extensively on the subjects of government regulation of the drug industry and on libertarian communication.
everything you say are WRONG, you are brainwashed poor man..... the increased tax, can you link it ? You only need to get an insurance ( like everyone should have ) and they will help you pay it if you gain not much money ( They got a program, you LOSS NOTHING , you gain everything when you need to go see a doctor.... ) that 33 % milions people this would help , who can't pay for it right now....
This would increase your quality of life like NOTHING ELSE before.... I'm sad you don't see that. Wake up man plz, that's for you ! what you list after are other thing who need to be done, but obama start in the right way, this got changed alot since 2008.... also that good to note that the law in 2008 got changed by the republicain many many time, that them who make it cost that much...( the cost was like the EU one at first ) .and yet you blame Obama... and the republicain blame obama too and now they ... WTF... im not writing anymore.. WAKE UP....
the lower work hour since I don't know what got nothing to do with this law... You are wrong, they are trying to create false reason and you are right into them....
look into the internet , READ, dont take fact from people even if they look good, THINK FOR YOURSELF, look at the LAW at first, READ WIKIPEDIA... look into stuft...
the law good, obama right, republicain are WRONG and should just shut up and stop the shut down, whine at them not at obama OMG.... what wrong with you people ???
Obamacare has already increased premiums from 60% to 135% and this is a fact, its already happened and premiums are set to increase even more.
So pretty much everyone from 18 to 55, self employed, middle class, small businesses will be negatively affected by the higher premiums.
Now this law is going to benefit you if you are 60+ years and/or welfare queen who hasn't worked a day in your life in the short term. Long term it unsustainable as it adds additional 6 trillion in debt over the next 20 years. Its just impossible to pay for it.
On October 09 2013 17:53 Parsistamon wrote: I'm not convinced that the case against republicans need be entirely on moral grounds--do we accept running the government as a legitimate bargaining chip? I don't think comparisons to hostage situations are entirely misguided. There's that famous quote by lincoln from his cooper union address:
On February 27, 1860 Rep. Abraham Lincoln said: Your [the south] purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events...But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
in the above case he was talking about southerners' threats to the union. Lincoln clearly rejected the terms of that "negotiation" and I would like to think he was vindicated in doing so. Though republicans are not trying to destroy the union, I think their efforts against the federal government here are comparable. I just don't think allowing this tactic is a good idea: it opens a dangerous precedent, allows a small minority (a quarter of one house) to control the government, creates instability, the list goes on.
Second, even if we assume that the only reason not to go forward with a shutdown like this is entirely moral, is that not enough? We expect our representatives in congress to make moral decisions all the time. Obviously the republicans are making a moral judgment, weighing the (alleged) potential harm of the ACA against the harm a shutdown would cause. I think, however, the moral reasoning here should be clear: the harm caused by the ACA is potential harm, harm that can be mitigated in the future if it indeed comes to pass. The government shut down is real, and immediate. It causes harm not only to federal workers, to vacationers, to those affected by food outbreaks, severe weather and c. but also by destroying confidence in the full faith and credit of the united states, in our ability to govern ourselves, and our strength as a reserve currency. Again, I think the moral judgement is clear.
I don't agree that the Shutdown is comparable to the South's secession. What is comparable is the rhetoric of the South and of some current Republican party members. The actual events are not, in any way, similar. There is no threat of Republicans attempting to steal property owned by all Americans to use as they see fit.
What is actually happening is that Republicans are refusing to pass a budget that does not pay for itself, or where the method of paying for itself is immoral. The reason it does not pay for itself is ACA; the reason ACA's attempts to pay for itself are immoral is that it violates what are (to republicans) the foundations of what the Constitution are written. The Supreme Court may have ruled that the ACA is Constitutional, but they are not the final say. It is the Republicans duty to change the Constitution if it is determined that the Constitution is not worded as intended, and if all they have to do to do that is fail to pass a budget, so be it.
The ACA is not health care: it does not provide for preventative care. It does not cover pre-existing conditions. It does not provide for new health care facilities, or for those who fall between the cracks of society. What it is, is a new form of tax, which sets dangerous precedent in granting powers to already overly-bloated agencies. It does mean that many health care benefits are disappearing, with the expectation that the ACA will replace it. It does mean that money is being funneled to certain health care providers who successfully lobbied for these changes.
Honestly, so many government budgets in America are passed without proper action that I am pleased at any attempt by the government to reject a budget forced down their throats. I am pleased with both the democrats and republicans for refusing to agree to yet another budget that demands spending and collecting money that has no business being spent. If the government wants to create an actual health care system I will fully support it, but the ACA is not that system, and if it means that the American people get to have their say by making it a major election issue than nothing could be better.
I think this entire issue about ACA is bemusing to many non-Americans. This is purely down to many countries having established Universal Healthcare policies and having first hand experience of such a system being a boon rather than a burden. That Obamacare is being represented in some quarters as some insidious plan to be demonized strikes non-Americans as somewhat strange, considering the bill is an attempt to allow the poorest members of American society to actually get affordable medical healthcare, which sounds like a laudable aim. It also seems somewhat strange to hear that America, the richest country in the world, cannot implement such a system because they cannot afford it, when as previously mentioned, poorer countries can afford to run such programs.
While the ACA debate and the shutdown, is strictly an internal matter for Americans, the issue becomes a global concern were the USA to default on it's debt obligations.
My perception is that the Republicans seem to be acting in an undemocratic manner by forcing this shutdown. The ACA was proposed, debated and voted upon. It passed. They should respect the democratic principle and respect the outcome of the vote. What is the point in even having a vote on a law, if the outcome is then ignored? Indeed, the ACA was voted upon numerous times and passed all those times. The Republicans should respect the concepts of voting and abide by the result of the vote.
On October 09 2013 21:39 revel8 wrote: I think this entire issue about ACA is bemusing to many non-Americans. This is purely down to many countries having established Universal Healthcare policies and having first hand experience of such a system being a boon rather than a burden. That Obamacare is being represented in some quarters as some insidious plan to be demonized strikes non-Americans as somewhat strange, considering the bill is an attempt to allow the poorest members of American society to actually get affordable medical healthcare, which sounds like a laudable aim. It also seems somewhat strange to hear that America, the richest country in the world, cannot implement such a system because they cannot afford it, when as previously mentioned, poorer countries can afford to run such programs.
While the ACA debate and the shutdown, is strictly an internal matter for Americans, the issue becomes a global concern were the USA to default on it's debt obligations.
My perception is that the Republicans seem to be acting in an undemocratic manner by forcing this shutdown. The ACA was proposed, debated and voted upon. It passed. They should respect the democratic principle and respect the outcome of the vote. What is the point in even having a vote on a law, if the outcome is then ignored? Indeed, the ACA was voted upon numerous times and passed all those times. The Republicans should respect the concepts of voting and abide by the result of the vote.
Indeed, the entire issue is definitely amusing.
Imagine if the Dems had done this to get the Assault Weapons Ban renewed, rofl. Think of all the wonderful possibilities the future will have to hold if we accept this as a legitimate political tool.
EPT
