On October 09 2013 22:08 LaughingTulkas wrote: The problem now is that Obama can't capitulate, because it sets a terrible precedent, but neither can the Republicans capitulate, because they've taken things too far to give up without getting anything in return. Somebody needs to find out some face saving compromise that the Republicans can say "we got this" while the Democrats can still say "we didn't give them anything important" which frankly seems pretty impossible (it may be).
Note: obviously, to really do such a thing is impossible, but what we truly need is a solution which allows them the SAY that they did it to their base, and say it in such a way that the base will believe it. This second is actually pretty easy, the staunch Republicans and Democrats will believe just about any spin that they read that favors (or victimizes) their particular party, its the first part of the equation that is hard. What would such a compromise be? It has to be something at least symbolically important to the Republicans, but most likely substantively unimportant to the Democrats.
The best I can think of is a temporary agreement for the government and the institution of a special commission to fix the real problem, and one the Republicans feel they can control. I just don't think such a commission would succeed.
Except there isnt even a face saving compromise possible anymore. The Republicans have pushed the fight against the ACA so far that any solution that doesnt effect the ACA is an automatic loss. And the Democrats cannot sell this as anything other then a defeat if any part of the ACA is touched since they keep publicly stating that no budget that changes the ACA is acceptable.
If a clean CR can get a vote without the Republicans bringing it to the floor then there is a way out. More moderate Republicans vote for it to save the nation from default which they can sell to there moderate constituents while the hardliners can say they did all they possibly could.
The other option? Obama executive orders around the debt ceiling, saving the US from default. Winning yet another point over the Republicans and the deadlock continues until the 2014 elections where hopefully the Republicans lose so bad the Democrats get the Senate, House and Presidency and the country can finally go back to running again.
If you're not living in the US or are a US Citizen, please do not tell us how to vote or how you want our country to be governed. It might surprise you that some of us are sick of the donkey nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Also, the fact that you say the Democrats need to save the US because the Republicans are essentially the bad guys is perverse. Please realize that international propaganda from the US is primarily liberal.
Firstly, there's nothing coming out of US that seems even remotely liberal to the outside world.
Secondly, it doesn't take any propaganda to "portray" Republicans as the bad guys - because they look the absolute worst when they speak for themselves and express their ideology freely.
Finally, there is no "you". There are two sides to your country that don't even listen to each other any more, and they've grown so much apart that they wouldn't understand one another even if they did. We're not telling "you" anything, we're just picking sides that already exist in your country. This might come as a surprise for you, but most of us want to see the US as a progressive, democratic society that it occasionally showed signs of being - which is more than can be said for a large number of actual US citizens.
So uh, is there a time limit to this government shut down, or can it continue indefinitely? Are there any other avenues of resolution apart from the two parties coming to an agreement? I really don't understand how this is still happening
On October 10 2013 01:20 Exoteric wrote: So uh, is there a time limit to this government shut down, or can it continue indefinitely? Are there any other avenues of resolution apart from the two parties coming to an agreement? I really don't understand how this is still happening
Unlike a lot of other nations there don't seem to be fail saves to force a new election when the system is in a gridlock. Mostly tho this is because the 3 political institutes (house, congress, president) are totally separate in elections so you cant just hold 1 new election to fix it.
And as far as i'm aware it can pretty much continue indefinitely tho at some point the people will get pissed off enough to take action.
On October 10 2013 01:20 Exoteric wrote: So uh, is there a time limit to this government shut down, or can it continue indefinitely? Are there any other avenues of resolution apart from the two parties coming to an agreement? I really don't understand how this is still happening
To give you a short overview:
1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis. 2. People debate whether the President has the authority to order the department of finance to continue as if there was no debt ceiling (the Democrats seem to argue that this is not possible, alas it would save the US and the world from the crisis mentioned before). 3. Right now, it seems that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can get to an agreement without one party losing its face. Since the Republicans want to either alter or stop the ACA at all costs - even risking a financial meltdown - while the Democrats repeatedly have neglected any form of alteration and also underlining that giving in now would set a very bad precedent, there seems to be no way out of this. Basically, both are all in. 4. The rest of the world just observes this internal struggle with astonishment - even represented by the mocking of US users on this site by international users (see Serpest's post and the responses to it over the last two pages).
Keep in mind, since I am just a lowly kraut who has no right at all to tell US citizens how to govern their country (hello Serpest!) I may be not the right person to give an insightful summary of the current situation.
On October 09 2013 21:53 Skilledblob wrote: can only quote from an episode from a satire show that runs here:
"children shooting each other with automatic guns, that is freedom. Being treated afterwards in the hospital free of charge, that is communism"
the US has one of the highest per capita spending on hospital bills compared to other countries with universal healthcare. I think it was around 7000$ average in the US to around 3800$ in germany for example. This high spending comes exactly because people dont have proper health care and have to go to emergency rooms even though the illness could have been treated earlier and thus cheaper in the end. So the state ends up sitting on huge emergency room costs.
This would not happen if universal healthcare was a thing and the state would also have a better position to force pharmacy companies to lower their prices.
Not quite, you can put most of the blame of the insane amounts of bureaucracy that has gotten worse and worse in the medical field. From malpractice insurance which is nothing but a two-pronged sword for doctors, a lot of situations are coming up where either doctors are purposely prescribing things that are overreactions (painkillers, surgery) or not doing enough because they are conservative in natural but a patient demands a "quick-fix" not knowing that isn't always the best course. Or they simple do not care or know what to do. Often patients think it is okay the sue for malpractice. It is a very ambiguous situation and one that is making a mess of the medical profession. Furthermore, the spending will only get worse as those uninsured, usually due to lack of funds, mostly likely having their bills covered in the premiums of others or the healthcare providers will just sing the song of every bank in 2008, in hopes of a bail out.
Fact is that US healthcare is incredibly high compared to other health care systems that achieve largely the same result. . US patients are flying to Europe/Canada to get surgeries because its flat out less than half the cost here, similar sugeries can cost 10x more in the US, simple procedures go over 30x the cost of other developed countries (see here for example).
Malpractice suits and insurances makes up part of that difference no doubt as might insurer bureaucracy but they're part of the deregulated healthcare system you have chosen. Malpractice suits and bureaucracy exist in the rest of the world just like they do in the US, people just don't get similar payouts.
True, but I think this law doesn't hit any of those marks. It just forces you to buy health insurance, whether you can cover it or not. Yeah much of it will be subsidized but what happens when providers run out of that cash, premiums go up. Hell, they'll probably go up on day one! You also need to couple this with the real problem that needs to be tackled. The insane living costs of America and its out of control spending and inflation. Subsidizing an oligopoly market while forcing those not already in the market to join, that really doesn't fix anything. Again this looks like powers at be getting their way and the American government attacking an effect and not a cause, typical of politics today so it looks like something got done.
1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis.
Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where?
On October 09 2013 22:08 LaughingTulkas wrote: The problem now is that Obama can't capitulate, because it sets a terrible precedent, but neither can the Republicans capitulate, because they've taken things too far to give up without getting anything in return. Somebody needs to find out some face saving compromise that the Republicans can say "we got this" while the Democrats can still say "we didn't give them anything important" which frankly seems pretty impossible (it may be).
Note: obviously, to really do such a thing is impossible, but what we truly need is a solution which allows them the SAY that they did it to their base, and say it in such a way that the base will believe it. This second is actually pretty easy, the staunch Republicans and Democrats will believe just about any spin that they read that favors (or victimizes) their particular party, its the first part of the equation that is hard. What would such a compromise be? It has to be something at least symbolically important to the Republicans, but most likely substantively unimportant to the Democrats.
The best I can think of is a temporary agreement for the government and the institution of a special commission to fix the real problem, and one the Republicans feel they can control. I just don't think such a commission would succeed.
Except there isnt even a face saving compromise possible anymore. The Republicans have pushed the fight against the ACA so far that any solution that doesnt effect the ACA is an automatic loss. And the Democrats cannot sell this as anything other then a defeat if any part of the ACA is touched since they keep publicly stating that no budget that changes the ACA is acceptable.
If a clean CR can get a vote without the Republicans bringing it to the floor then there is a way out. More moderate Republicans vote for it to save the nation from default which they can sell to there moderate constituents while the hardliners can say they did all they possibly could.
The other option? Obama executive orders around the debt ceiling, saving the US from default. Winning yet another point over the Republicans and the deadlock continues until the 2014 elections where hopefully the Republicans lose so bad the Democrats get the Senate, House and Presidency and the country can finally go back to running again.
If you're not living in the US or are a US Citizen, please do not tell us how to vote or how you want our country to be governed.
This is so hilarious it's now my signature, I'm not letting this one die.
1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis.
Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where?
[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st."
1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis.
Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where?
[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st."
my english realy bad , will post the follow in french , someone can translate it ? obamacare good for america and you should fight for it, dont accept what republicains are doing too....
Dans ce débat, les Républicains n'en sont plus à un mensonge ou une contradiction près... Et apparemment, les Américains aussi: selon un sondage publié en juillet, 52% des électeurs américains continuent d’être contre la réforme mais un autre sondage fascinant, effectué en juin, révélait que «la plupart des Américains sont contre Obamacare, mais en faveur des mesures que propose la loi».
Les résultats semblaient complètement incohérents: 56% des personnes interviewées étaient contre la réforme, mais 82% étaient favorables à ce que les compagnies d’assurance ne puissent pas refuser de prendre en charge des personnes malades, et 61% favorables à ce que les jeunes puissent être pris en charge par l’assurance de leurs parents jusqu'à 26 ans (deux mesures qui font partie du projet Obamacare).
Ces chiffres étonnants sont la conséquence d’une campagne de communication orchestrée par les Républicains et leurs alliés qui, depuis 2010, ont dépensé plus de 200 millions de dollars en publicités négatives contre la loi.
Tout a commencé en 2009, lorsque le consultant en communication Frank Luntz a rédigé un rapport confidentiel (rendu public par le site Politico) pour aider les Républicains à ternir l’image de la loi. Sans se soucier des faits, il a créé une description de la réforme susceptible de terrifier des millions d’Américains.
Dans son texte de 28 pages, intitulé «Le langage de la santé», ce spin doctor recommande aux élus conservateurs de dire qu’un «bureaucrate va s’interposer entre vous et votre médecin», et que la loi constitue «une prise de contrôle de la santé par le gouvernement» (government takeover), ce qui mènerait à «un rationnement des soins». Est-ce vrai? Non, la majorité des Américains conserveront l’assurance privée qu’ils ont déjà; les autres achèteront une assurance privée subventionnée par l’Etat, en fonction de leurs revenus.
Toutes les organisations sérieuses de vérification des faits (fact-checking) répètent que ces affirmations sont fausses, mais elles sont systématiquement répétées durant la campagne et figurent sur le site officiel de Mitt Romney. L’interférence de l’horrible bureaucrate qui dictera les soins est aussi un thème de prédilection du candidat républicain qui a dit en juin qu’«Obamacare mettrait le gouvernement fédéral entre vous et votre médecin».
Un autre «argument» des anti réforme est de dire que la loi va mener à «la plus grande augmentation d’impôts de l’histoire des Etats-Unis». C’est faux, mais des équivalents de cette phrase sont répétés régulièrement par Romney et son équipe.
Dans ce débat, on glisse toujours très vite de la réalité à la fiction. Par exemple, une commission d’experts va être nommée pour essayer de maîtriser les dépenses de l’assurance santé pour les plus de 65 ans. Il est spécifiquement précisé qu’ils ne pourront pas limiter l’accès aux soins des cotisants.
Peu importe! Paul Ryan a répété tout l’été que ces bureaucrates empêcheront les grands-mères d’être bien soignées et, lors de son premier débat contre Obama, Romney a deux fois parlé des restrictions qu'imposerait ce comité.
1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis.
Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where?
[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st."
Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November.
Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but:
"“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st"
In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets.
Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it.
Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though).
1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis.
Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where?
[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st."
Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November.
Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but:
"“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st"
In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets.
Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it.
Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though).
Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month.
On October 09 2013 22:08 LaughingTulkas wrote: The problem now is that Obama can't capitulate, because it sets a terrible precedent, but neither can the Republicans capitulate, because they've taken things too far to give up without getting anything in return. Somebody needs to find out some face saving compromise that the Republicans can say "we got this" while the Democrats can still say "we didn't give them anything important" which frankly seems pretty impossible (it may be).
Note: obviously, to really do such a thing is impossible, but what we truly need is a solution which allows them the SAY that they did it to their base, and say it in such a way that the base will believe it. This second is actually pretty easy, the staunch Republicans and Democrats will believe just about any spin that they read that favors (or victimizes) their particular party, its the first part of the equation that is hard. What would such a compromise be? It has to be something at least symbolically important to the Republicans, but most likely substantively unimportant to the Democrats.
The best I can think of is a temporary agreement for the government and the institution of a special commission to fix the real problem, and one the Republicans feel they can control. I just don't think such a commission would succeed.
Except there isnt even a face saving compromise possible anymore. The Republicans have pushed the fight against the ACA so far that any solution that doesnt effect the ACA is an automatic loss. And the Democrats cannot sell this as anything other then a defeat if any part of the ACA is touched since they keep publicly stating that no budget that changes the ACA is acceptable.
If a clean CR can get a vote without the Republicans bringing it to the floor then there is a way out. More moderate Republicans vote for it to save the nation from default which they can sell to there moderate constituents while the hardliners can say they did all they possibly could.
The other option? Obama executive orders around the debt ceiling, saving the US from default. Winning yet another point over the Republicans and the deadlock continues until the 2014 elections where hopefully the Republicans lose so bad the Democrats get the Senate, House and Presidency and the country can finally go back to running again.
If you're not living in the US or are a US Citizen, please do not tell us how to vote or how you want our country to be governed. It might surprise you that some of us are sick of the donkey nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Also, the fact that you say the Democrats need to save the US because the Republicans are essentially the bad guys is perverse. Please realize that international propaganda from the US is primarily liberal.
As an American, I extend an invitation to all non Americans to do whatever the hell they want and ignore him. I don't mind if people tell me how to vote. It doesn't hurt me as long as a I trust my reason to detect good and bad arguments so that I can see the good advice from the bad. If someone from another country posts good advice for my country and me as a voter, I thank you and I hope I can detect your advice for what it is. If someone posts something other than that, I'm a big boy and I have to deal with reading things that are wrong. At least our neighbors around the world are often more closer to the truth than our news networks and quicker to the point.
I would caution those commenting to beware that our sources of information are our politicians and our journalists who are fucking idiots for the most part, so good information to educate your self on your system will be hard to come by.
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 ???
Increasing what I have to pay for is not increasing my quality of life. What he is referring to with the hours is that businesses who have full time employees (defined as working more than 30 hours a week) are required to pay for their health insurance. This means if I was technically part time I could work 30+ hours, but now if my company lets me do that they then become required to pay for my health insurance, therefore, I will always work less than 30 hours as a part time employee.
This is not a false argument, nor is it a lie or exaggeration. The law states any business with more than 50 employees is required to pay for health insurance for any full time employee which is defined as working more than 30 hours. This means that to get around this rule businesses need more part time employees who they won't schedule over 30 hours.
I don't know this law too well, and I won't pretend I know a bunch, but generally speaking you can't provide an addtional, new service without either A. Cutting costs in other areas, or B. Increasing taxes. Our government only serves to grow so I'd assume taxes impact somewhere.
The government has now denied dead soldiers' families their death benefits due to the "shutdown."
How far and how disgusting are these people willing to go to make the political point that we are subjects of the government and we better not ever challenge their funding again?
On October 09 2013 22:08 LaughingTulkas wrote: The problem now is that Obama can't capitulate, because it sets a terrible precedent, but neither can the Republicans capitulate, because they've taken things too far to give up without getting anything in return. Somebody needs to find out some face saving compromise that the Republicans can say "we got this" while the Democrats can still say "we didn't give them anything important" which frankly seems pretty impossible (it may be).
Note: obviously, to really do such a thing is impossible, but what we truly need is a solution which allows them the SAY that they did it to their base, and say it in such a way that the base will believe it. This second is actually pretty easy, the staunch Republicans and Democrats will believe just about any spin that they read that favors (or victimizes) their particular party, its the first part of the equation that is hard. What would such a compromise be? It has to be something at least symbolically important to the Republicans, but most likely substantively unimportant to the Democrats.
The best I can think of is a temporary agreement for the government and the institution of a special commission to fix the real problem, and one the Republicans feel they can control. I just don't think such a commission would succeed.
Except there isnt even a face saving compromise possible anymore. The Republicans have pushed the fight against the ACA so far that any solution that doesnt effect the ACA is an automatic loss. And the Democrats cannot sell this as anything other then a defeat if any part of the ACA is touched since they keep publicly stating that no budget that changes the ACA is acceptable.
If a clean CR can get a vote without the Republicans bringing it to the floor then there is a way out. More moderate Republicans vote for it to save the nation from default which they can sell to there moderate constituents while the hardliners can say they did all they possibly could.
The other option? Obama executive orders around the debt ceiling, saving the US from default. Winning yet another point over the Republicans and the deadlock continues until the 2014 elections where hopefully the Republicans lose so bad the Democrats get the Senate, House and Presidency and the country can finally go back to running again.
If you're not living in the US or are a US Citizen, please do not tell us how to vote or how you want our country to be governed. It might surprise you that some of us are sick of the donkey nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Also, the fact that you say the Democrats need to save the US because the Republicans are essentially the bad guys is perverse. Please realize that international propaganda from the US is primarily liberal.
Eh. People across the world who have absolutely no education in the U.S. Constitution have just as much knowledge as most of the American voting population. It's kind of a big reason we have many of the problems we do.
On October 09 2013 22:08 LaughingTulkas wrote: The problem now is that Obama can't capitulate, because it sets a terrible precedent, but neither can the Republicans capitulate, because they've taken things too far to give up without getting anything in return. Somebody needs to find out some face saving compromise that the Republicans can say "we got this" while the Democrats can still say "we didn't give them anything important" which frankly seems pretty impossible (it may be).
Note: obviously, to really do such a thing is impossible, but what we truly need is a solution which allows them the SAY that they did it to their base, and say it in such a way that the base will believe it. This second is actually pretty easy, the staunch Republicans and Democrats will believe just about any spin that they read that favors (or victimizes) their particular party, its the first part of the equation that is hard. What would such a compromise be? It has to be something at least symbolically important to the Republicans, but most likely substantively unimportant to the Democrats.
The best I can think of is a temporary agreement for the government and the institution of a special commission to fix the real problem, and one the Republicans feel they can control. I just don't think such a commission would succeed.
Except there isnt even a face saving compromise possible anymore. The Republicans have pushed the fight against the ACA so far that any solution that doesnt effect the ACA is an automatic loss. And the Democrats cannot sell this as anything other then a defeat if any part of the ACA is touched since they keep publicly stating that no budget that changes the ACA is acceptable.
If a clean CR can get a vote without the Republicans bringing it to the floor then there is a way out. More moderate Republicans vote for it to save the nation from default which they can sell to there moderate constituents while the hardliners can say they did all they possibly could.
The other option? Obama executive orders around the debt ceiling, saving the US from default. Winning yet another point over the Republicans and the deadlock continues until the 2014 elections where hopefully the Republicans lose so bad the Democrats get the Senate, House and Presidency and the country can finally go back to running again.
If you're not living in the US or are a US Citizen, please do not tell us how to vote or how you want our country to be governed. It might surprise you that some of us are sick of the donkey nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Also, the fact that you say the Democrats need to save the US because the Republicans are essentially the bad guys is perverse. Please realize that international propaganda from the US is primarily liberal.
Eh. People across the world who have absolutely no education in the U.S. Constitution have just as much knowledge as most of the American voting population. It's kind of a big reason we have many of the problems we do.
That's because the nation's educators largely see the U.S. Constitution as nothing more than an impediment.
On October 09 2013 22:08 LaughingTulkas wrote: The problem now is that Obama can't capitulate, because it sets a terrible precedent, but neither can the Republicans capitulate, because they've taken things too far to give up without getting anything in return. Somebody needs to find out some face saving compromise that the Republicans can say "we got this" while the Democrats can still say "we didn't give them anything important" which frankly seems pretty impossible (it may be).
Note: obviously, to really do such a thing is impossible, but what we truly need is a solution which allows them the SAY that they did it to their base, and say it in such a way that the base will believe it. This second is actually pretty easy, the staunch Republicans and Democrats will believe just about any spin that they read that favors (or victimizes) their particular party, its the first part of the equation that is hard. What would such a compromise be? It has to be something at least symbolically important to the Republicans, but most likely substantively unimportant to the Democrats.
The best I can think of is a temporary agreement for the government and the institution of a special commission to fix the real problem, and one the Republicans feel they can control. I just don't think such a commission would succeed.
Except there isnt even a face saving compromise possible anymore. The Republicans have pushed the fight against the ACA so far that any solution that doesnt effect the ACA is an automatic loss. And the Democrats cannot sell this as anything other then a defeat if any part of the ACA is touched since they keep publicly stating that no budget that changes the ACA is acceptable.
If a clean CR can get a vote without the Republicans bringing it to the floor then there is a way out. More moderate Republicans vote for it to save the nation from default which they can sell to there moderate constituents while the hardliners can say they did all they possibly could.
The other option? Obama executive orders around the debt ceiling, saving the US from default. Winning yet another point over the Republicans and the deadlock continues until the 2014 elections where hopefully the Republicans lose so bad the Democrats get the Senate, House and Presidency and the country can finally go back to running again.
If you're not living in the US or are a US Citizen, please do not tell us how to vote or how you want our country to be governed. It might surprise you that some of us are sick of the donkey nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Also, the fact that you say the Democrats need to save the US because the Republicans are essentially the bad guys is perverse. Please realize that international propaganda from the US is primarily liberal.
Eh. People across the world who have absolutely no education in the U.S. Constitution have just as much knowledge as most of the American voting population. It's kind of a big reason we have many of the problems we do.
That's because the nation's educators largely see the U.S. Constitution as nothing more than an impediment.
Yours may have. That you can blame teachers of all people speaks volumes.
On October 09 2013 22:08 LaughingTulkas wrote: The problem now is that Obama can't capitulate, because it sets a terrible precedent, but neither can the Republicans capitulate, because they've taken things too far to give up without getting anything in return. Somebody needs to find out some face saving compromise that the Republicans can say "we got this" while the Democrats can still say "we didn't give them anything important" which frankly seems pretty impossible (it may be).
Note: obviously, to really do such a thing is impossible, but what we truly need is a solution which allows them the SAY that they did it to their base, and say it in such a way that the base will believe it. This second is actually pretty easy, the staunch Republicans and Democrats will believe just about any spin that they read that favors (or victimizes) their particular party, its the first part of the equation that is hard. What would such a compromise be? It has to be something at least symbolically important to the Republicans, but most likely substantively unimportant to the Democrats.
The best I can think of is a temporary agreement for the government and the institution of a special commission to fix the real problem, and one the Republicans feel they can control. I just don't think such a commission would succeed.
Except there isnt even a face saving compromise possible anymore. The Republicans have pushed the fight against the ACA so far that any solution that doesnt effect the ACA is an automatic loss. And the Democrats cannot sell this as anything other then a defeat if any part of the ACA is touched since they keep publicly stating that no budget that changes the ACA is acceptable.
If a clean CR can get a vote without the Republicans bringing it to the floor then there is a way out. More moderate Republicans vote for it to save the nation from default which they can sell to there moderate constituents while the hardliners can say they did all they possibly could.
The other option? Obama executive orders around the debt ceiling, saving the US from default. Winning yet another point over the Republicans and the deadlock continues until the 2014 elections where hopefully the Republicans lose so bad the Democrats get the Senate, House and Presidency and the country can finally go back to running again.
If you're not living in the US or are a US Citizen, please do not tell us how to vote or how you want our country to be governed. It might surprise you that some of us are sick of the donkey nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Also, the fact that you say the Democrats need to save the US because the Republicans are essentially the bad guys is perverse. Please realize that international propaganda from the US is primarily liberal.
Eh. People across the world who have absolutely no education in the U.S. Constitution have just as much knowledge as most of the American voting population. It's kind of a big reason we have many of the problems we do.
That's because the nation's educators largely see the U.S. Constitution as nothing more than an impediment.
Did you make this account just to troll this thread?
On October 10 2013 03:14 Nick Drake wrote: The government has now denied dead soldiers' families their death benefits due to the "shutdown."
How far and how disgusting are these people willing to go to make the political point that we are subjects of the government and we better not ever challenge their funding again?
I think that is one powerful message people don't seem to be picking up on. The agency in charge of all these National Parks and Monuments should be severely neutered as far as funding goes. People with their eyes open are learning a valuable lesson in terms of what a government with too much reach can do.
EPT![[image loading]](http://blogs-images.forbes.com/toddhixon/files/2012/02/MaryMeeker-graph-e1329513274401.png)
. 
