EPTAs for confusing democracy with fairness im sorry but when people vote in africa with a gun held to there face we don't call it rightful democratic election either. A democratic country go's a lot further then the 51% rules regardless of the means they used to get said 51%.
US government shutdown - Page 76
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22145 Posts
As for confusing democracy with fairness im sorry but when people vote in africa with a gun held to there face we don't call it rightful democratic election either. A democratic country go's a lot further then the 51% rules regardless of the means they used to get said 51%. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
Of course it matters! Are you nuts? Shutting down is a funding issue. It's not some contingency plan to put the screws to Americans. This is you admitting that your entire argument is predicated on the specious assumption that government shutdowns which are related to particular matters of funding (i.e. to the ACA) therefore relate to all funding of everything. What's more, furloughing is clearly enshrined in American law. It's not a new concept. This shutdown, insofar as the Republicans have elected to pursue it, is absolutely an attempt to piss people off and get the attention of the citizenry. They've made their bed; they can lie in it. And then you look at the compromises the Republicans have offered and it's like...lol. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On October 08 2013 19:56 Restrider wrote: Since I am not a US citizen, my understanding regarding US internal politics is only superficial. Although I am familiar with the basic conflict, I would like to hear from people with more insight than me, if the US politicians - I am not going to point fingers, although I am of the opinion that the Republicans being hijacked by some right-wing radicals is something I cannot really fathom - are self-destructive and politically and economically suicidal enough to let this shut down turn into bankruptcy. Or can we expect Boehner and/or Obama to give in in some way or another? I believe that will be dependent on how far the House is prepared to take this. These actions are already unprecedented. They are, for the most part, going "all-in" at the moment. But what you mention is based upon if they want to go "completely all-in". But republican approval is failing, (likely by what I mentioned earlier, the manipulation and corruption is so obvious and really shows how the culprits are when House leaders won't even allow a vote to take place!) so it seems the strategy is not working, and they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Even another republican has stated something along the lines of them setting themselves on fire as they entered the battlefield. This may persuade them to try another course of action. There is a bigger worry imo at this point though. If the house leaders decide to change strategies, a potential strategy is intentionally letting the default happen, then trying to blame it on Obama and attempt to get him impeached. If that happens this could potentially go on for much longer, and give them more opportunities to not only attempt to stop Obamacare, but also give many more attempts to use the media to get the public back on the Republicans side... On October 09 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote: And then you look at the compromises the Republicans have offered and it's like...lol. lol... I think when you say "compromises" it should be in quotes... | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22145 Posts
On October 09 2013 06:06 Spyridon wrote: I believe that will be dependent on how far the House is prepared to take this. These actions are already unprecedented. They are, for the most part, going "all-in" at the moment. But what you mention is based upon if they want to go "completely all-in". But republican approval is failing, (likely by what I mentioned earlier, the manipulation and corruption is so obvious and really shows how the culprits are when House leaders won't even allow a vote to take place!) so it seems the strategy is not working, and they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Even another republican has stated something along the lines of them setting themselves on fire as they entered the battlefield. This may persuade them to try another course of action. There is a bigger worry imo at this point though. If the house leaders decide to change strategies, a potential strategy is intentionally letting the default happen, then trying to blame it on Obama and attempt to get him impeached. If that happens this could potentially go on for much longer, and give them more opportunities to not only attempt to stop Obamacare, but also give many more attempts to use the media to get the public back on the Republicans side... lol... I think when you say "compromises" it should be in quotes... Im pretty sure Obama has a way around the debt ceiling and its default. All the Republicans will do by forcing a default is commit even more suicide as Obama will sweep in the save the day through some loophole | ||
|
Ventris
Germany1226 Posts
| ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 09 2013 06:12 Ventris wrote: I still can't believe some Republicans see a default as a serious option. They have to know that that would be in no way just "reining in spending" and that the consequences would be disastrous, don't they? I mean they can't be all insane and gamble the nations future away for ideology and some vague short-term political gain... I haven't heard anyone say that default is a serious option. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
The Social Security Trust fund holds $2.7 Tn of public debt (compare that to China's $1.1Tn) | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On October 09 2013 06:25 TheFish7 wrote: Maybe the Republicans want the U.S. to default so that Social Security will go away. The Social Security Trust fund holds $2.7 Tn of public debt (compare that to China's $1.1Tn) Why would you compare it to China? | ||
|
Ventris
Germany1226 Posts
On October 09 2013 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I haven't heard anyone say that default is a serious option. There is this guy: Rep. Ted Yoho unseated longtime Republican Cliff Stearns in a Florida primary race last year, taking Stearns on from the right. He argues that a default might actually be good for the economy. “I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we’re] going broke,” said Yoho to the Washington Post. “I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,” he continued, on refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And several of them just deny that a default will happen and claim everything will be fine even if the ceiling isn't raised, as there is enough revenue to cover only the debt and pensions. Which is nonsense, as that would very likely also be seen as a default by the rating agencies. “I would dispel the rumor that is going around that you hear on every newscast that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling we will default on our debt,” said Sen. Tom Coburn Monday on CBS. “We won’t.” Rep. Steve King of Iowa made a similar claim last week, when he called default talk “false demagoguery,” on CNN. “I don’t think the credit of the United States is going to be collapsed,” said King. “We have plenty of money coming in to service the debt. When we stop servicing the debt, that would be default. We’re a long, long ways from that.” | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23731 Posts
On October 09 2013 06:25 TheFish7 wrote: Maybe the Republicans want the U.S. to default so that Social Security will go away. The Social Security Trust fund holds $2.7 Tn of public debt (compare that to China's $1.1Tn) You already hear it in how they say that because of Tax Revenue we could still service the debt.... Well Bonds and such, They conveniently leave out that we would not have the money to pay the military and SS and the many other obligations we have that failure to pay would still result in the potential of another (likely more) significant credit rating reduction. They have gone all-in on this and the minority of Americans that support it are essentially the only ones who have any intention of voting Republican in the future. Republicans have committed to a strategy that will only win them older, white, less educated, males. Seeing how this is a shrinking demographic and the demographics they are losing continue to grow, they have essentially pushed themselves out of ever winning a national election while those are the people who they focus on appeasing. | ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
It includes 9 democrats. Feel free to share the list and vote the retarded tea party out of office. sample- ------ Marsha Blackburn R TN-7 John A. Boehner R OH-8 Charles Boustany Jr. R LA-3 Kevin Brady R TX-8 Jim Bridenstine R OK-1 Mo Brooks R AL-5 ---------------- Entire list- + Show Spoiler + Robert B. Aderholt R AL-4 Justin Amash R MI-3 Mark Amodei R NV-2 Spencer Bachus R AL-6 Ron Barber D AZ-2 Lou Barletta R PA-11 Andy Barr R KY-6 John Barrow D GA-12 Dan Benishek R MI-1 Kerry Bentivolio R MI-11 Gus Bilirakis R FL-12 Rob Bishop R UT-1 Diane Black R TN-6 Marsha Blackburn R TN-7 John A. Boehner R OH-8 Charles Boustany Jr. R LA-3 Kevin Brady R TX-8 Jim Bridenstine R OK-1 Mo Brooks R AL-5 Susan Brooks R IN-5 Vern Buchanan R FL-16 Larry Bucshon R IN-8 Michael C. Burgess R TX-26 Ken Calvert R CA-42 Dave Camp R MI-4 John Campbell R CA-45 Eric Cantor R VA-7 Shelley Moore Capito R WV-2 John Carter R TX-31 Bill Cassidy R LA-6 Steven J. Chabot R OH-1 Jason Chaffetz R UT-3 Howard Coble R NC-6 Mike Coffman R CO-6 Tom Cole R OK-4 Chris Collins R NY-27 Doug Collins R GA-9 K. Michael Conaway R TX-11 Paul Cook R CA-8 Tom Cotton R AR-4 Kevin Cramer R ND-1 Rick Crawford R AR-1 Ander Crenshaw R FL-4 John Culberson R TX-7 Steve Daines R MT-1 Rodney Davis R IL-13 Ron DeSantis R FL-6 Jeffrey Denham R CA-10 Scott DesJarlais R TN-4 Sean Duffy R WI-7 Jeffrey Duncan R SC-3 John J. Duncan Jr. R TN-2 Renee Ellmers R NC-2 Blake Farenthold R TX-27 Stephen Fincher R TN-8 Michael G. Fitzpatrick R PA-8 Chuck Fleischmann R TN-3 John Fleming R LA-4 Bill Flores R TX-17 J. Randy Forbes R VA-4 Jeff Fortenberry R NE-1 Virginia Foxx R NC-5 Trent Franks R AZ-8 Rodney Frelinghuysen R NJ-11 Cory Gardner R CO-4 Scott Garrett R NJ-5 Jim Gerlach R PA-6 Bob Gibbs R OH-7 Chris Gibson R NY-19 Robert W. Goodlatte R VA-6 Paul Gosar R AZ-4 Trey Gowdy R SC-4 Sam Graves R MO-6 Tom Graves R GA-14 Tim Griffin R AR-2 Morgan Griffith R VA-9 Mike Grimm R NY-11 Brett Guthrie R KY-2 Ralph M. Hall R TX-4 Richard Hanna R NY-22 Gregg Harper R MS-3 Andy Harris R MD-1 Vicky Hartzler R MO-4 Doc Hastings R WA-4 Joe Heck R NV-3 Jeb Hensarling R TX-5 Jaime Herrera Beutler R WA-3 George Holding R NC-13 Steven Horsford D NV-4 Richard Hudson R NC-8 Tim Huelskamp R KS-1 Bill Huizenga R MI-2 Randy Hultgren R IL-14 Duncan D. Hunter R CA-50 Robert Hurt R VA-5 Darrell Issa R CA-49 Lynn Jenkins R KS-2 Bill Johnson R OH-6 Sam Johnson R TX-3 Walter B. Jones R NC-3 Jim Jordan R OH-4 Dave Joyce R OH-14 Mike Kelly R PA-3 Jack Kingston R GA-1 Adam Kinzinger R IL-16 John Kline R MN-2 Doug LaMalfa R CA-1 Raul Labrador R ID-1 Doug Lamborn R CO-5 Leonard Lance R NJ-7 James Lankford R OK-5 Tom Latham R IA-3 Robert E. Latta R OH-5 Frank A. LoBiondo R NJ-2 Billy Long R MO-7 Frank D. Lucas R OK-3 Blaine Luetkemeyer R MO-3 Cynthia M. Lummis R WY-1 Dan Maffei D NY-24 Sean Patrick Maloney D NY-18 Kenny Marchant R TX-24 Tom Marino R PA-10 Jim Matheson D UT-4 Kevin McCarthy R CA-23 Michael McCaul R TX-10 Tom McClintock R CA-4 Patrick T. McHenry R NC-10 Mike McIntyre D NC-7 Howard P. McKeon R CA-25 David McKinley R WV-1 Cathy McMorris Rodgers R WA-5 Mark Meadows R NC-11 Pat Meehan R PA-7 Luke Messer R IN-6 John L. Mica R FL-7 Candice S. Miller R MI-10 Gary G. Miller R CA-31 Jeff Miller R FL-1 Markwayne Mullin R OK-2 Mick Mulvaney R SC-5 Tim Murphy R PA-18 Randy Neugebauer R TX-19 Kristi Noem R SD-1 Richard Nugent R FL-11 Devin Nunes R CA-22 Alan Nunnelee R MS-1 Pete Olson R TX-22 Steven Palazzo R MS-4 Erik Paulsen R MN-3 Steve Pearce R NM-2 Scott Perry R PA-4 Tom Petri R WI-6 Robert Pittenger R NC-9 Joe Pitts R PA-16 Ted Poe R TX-2 Mike Pompeo R KS-4 Bill Posey R FL-8 Tom Price R GA-6 Trey Radel R FL-19 Tom Reed R NY-23 Dave Reichert R WA-8 Jim Renacci R OH-16 Reid Ribble R WI-8 Tom Rice R SC-7 Scott Rigell R VA-2 Martha Roby R AL-2 Phil Roe R TN-1 Harold Rogers R KY-5 Mike Rogers R MI-8 Dana Rohrabacher R CA-48 Todd Rokita R IN-4 Tom Rooney R FL-17 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R FL-27 Peter Roskam R IL-6 Dennis Ross R FL-15 Keith Rothfus R PA-12 Ed Royce R CA-39 Raul Ruiz D CA-36 Jon Runyan R NJ-3 Paul D. Ryan R WI-1 Matt Salmon R AZ-5 Mark Sanford R SC-1 Steve Scalise R LA-1 Aaron Schock R IL-18 David Schweikert R AZ-6 Austin Scott R GA-8 F. James Sensenbrenner R WI-5 Pete Sessions R TX-32 John Shimkus R IL-15 Bill Shuster R PA-9 Mike Simpson R ID-2 Kyrsten Sinema D AZ-9 Adrian Smith R NE-3 Christopher H. Smith R NJ-4 Jason Smith R MO-8 Lamar Smith R TX-21 Steve Southerland R FL-2 Chris Stewart R UT-2 Steve Stivers R OH-15 Marlin Stutzman R IN-3 Lee Terry R NE-2 Glenn Thompson R PA-5 William M. Thornberry R TX-13 Pat Tiberi R OH-12 Scott Tipton R CO-3 Michael R. Turner R OH-10 Fred Upton R MI-6 David Valadao R CA-21 Ann Wagner R MO-2 Tim Walberg R MI-7 Greg Walden R OR-2 Jackie Walorski R IN-2 Randy Weber R TX-14 Daniel Webster R FL-10 Brad Wenstrup R OH-2 Lynn Westmoreland R GA-3 Edward Whitfield R KY-1 Roger Williams R TX-25 Joe Wilson R SC-2 Robert J. Wittman R VA-1 Frank R. Wolf R VA-10 Steve Womack R AR-3 Rob Woodall R GA-7 Kevin Yoder R KS-3 Ted Yoho R FL-3 C. W. Bill Young R FL-13 Don Young R AK-1 Todd Young R IN-9 http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/504 | ||
|
Badfatpanda
United States9719 Posts
On October 09 2013 06:40 Ventris wrote: There is this guy: And several of them just deny that a default will happen and claim everything will be fine even if the ceiling isn't raised, as there is enough revenue to cover only the debt and pensions. Which is nonsense, as that would very likely also be seen as a default by the rating agencies. I agree with him in principle, American's don't really understand what the fuck is going on in their own country and some reality would be nice. Sure, as long as Obama can stave a meltdown off for another ~2 years he'll be in the clear but it'll happen sooner or later if things keep doing down this track. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
Because many people think that China owns the vast majority of US debt | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23731 Posts
On October 09 2013 07:47 TheFish7 wrote: Because many people think that China owns the vast majority of US debt Yeah, if you told them it was actually "The Fed" they would probably think you're talking about a guy in a black suit and sunglasses | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
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. The amount of disinformation, falsehoods and outright lies contained in this post is quite spectacular. I'll go through your claims one by one. 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. No it's not. Which "analysts" are you talking about, exactly? Any source? Are those the same "analysts" that came up with your previous "word on the street", completely unfounded claim with regards to Syria and the Fed nomination playing a role in the current crisis? On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: 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) Actually, it's not "standard" at all to attach strings to debt ceiling increases. It's the exact opposite of "standard". Negotiations on possible cuts and tax raises normally happen and lead to policy formulation during budget negotiations and not debt ceiling increases. On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations. This is a misrepresentation of the position of the Republicans. I suggest you go ask any Tea Party congressman if their ACA demand was an "opening gambit" - the answer is that it wasn't: it's their actual goal. You are trying to present the Republicans as a unified block that is rationally starting negotiations with a major demand, in order for the final compromise to still look good for them after some concessions from their side. The truth is that this is not at all the position of major elements of the Republican party, and that it is those elements of the party which have led its leadership to refuse to fund the government without a prior defunding of the ACA. Also, beyond the positions being held, the strategy used to achieve the objectives does not fall in the realm of normal negotiation processes, as I've already explained to you several times (see below again). On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. Which "countless years prior"? You're trying to pass off as "normal" a strategy which is everything but normal. Can you cite me another year where the matter of raising the debt limit led to 11th-hour extremely tense negotiations between Democrats and Republicans because the opposition party was controlling one chamber of Congress and was refusing to raise the ceiling unless its demands were met? On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This is a complete lie. Obama did not say he was unwilling to negotiate with Republicans. He said he was unwilling to negotiate while the Republicans were holding the functioning of the government and the raising of the debt limit hostages. This Republican strategy is the hard line position, not Obama's answer. And, in fact, as I already pointed out to you previously, "it is the Republican party which has refused to engage in actual negotiations over the budget, and in fact even to enter a conference with Democrats to do just that six months ago [and 18 times total since then]. They have simply not shown themselves to be interested in letting the Democrats gain something in exchange for Republican gains." Stop trying to argue that it is the Democrats who are unwilling to negotiate - it is factually not true. On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard Another complete lie. The Republicans were not at all caught off guard to by Obama's refusal to negotiate with the hostage-taking strategy in effect. The exact opposite is true: Obama clearly warned them months ago that the strategy was unacceptable and that negotiations would not happen under it. Jack Lew warned the GOP again in August that there would be no negotiation under the threat of not raising the debt limit. If you genuinely think that Republicans were surprised, it can only mean you haven't been paying attention to US news in the last few months (or that you're displaying massive levels of cognitive dissonance). On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. First of all, with regards to the debt ceiling, the "standard procedure" is raising it period. Second, Obama and Democrats are not asking the legislature to "rubber stamp [Obama]'s budget". In fact, the CR bill Senate Democrats are pushing has much less spending than Obama's budget. It is already crippled by many of the cuts Republicans have asked for. What's more, and once again, it is the Democrats who have been offering genuine budget negotiations to Republicans. That is the standard procedure - not the hostage-taking strategy we're witnessing from Republicans. Finally, the Democrats are hardly asking for a blank check, they're only asking for the usual debt ceiling raise and funding for the government to keep functioning, to allow the two sides to proceed with regular negotiations. On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. As I said, this is utterly false. I'll be waiting for your non-2011 example of debt ceiling negotiations where the opposing party had the power to prevent a raise and used that power to force the other side to accede to its demands. With regards to the budget, I've already explained to you at length what normal negotiations look like, and why the current Republican strategy is not a normal negotiation process. On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault. The shutdown, and the debt ceiling tension, is the Republicans fault (see the previous link again) due to the strategy they have adopted to try to get what they want. What you call a "PR campaign" is Obama being factual about the current situation. Meanwhile, the Republicans are the ones doing ridiculous photo-ops and trying to spin their way out of the blame. On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote: 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. His position was anything but sound. It was factually false - as are most of your assertions. | ||
|
wunsun
Canada622 Posts
Would this at least help alleviate the issue where there are such safe seats? | ||
|
electronic voyeur
United States133 Posts
On October 09 2013 05:45 Rassy wrote: Black friday is aproaching, lets see who blinks over the weekend. I wonder how people will spend the day | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
On October 09 2013 06:40 Ventris wrote: There is this guy: And several of them just deny that a default will happen and claim everything will be fine even if the ceiling isn't raised, as there is enough revenue to cover only the debt and pensions. Which is nonsense, as that would very likely also be seen as a default by the rating agencies. On October 09 2013 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I haven't heard anyone say that default is a serious option. Yeah, many republicans think that debt limit breach is no big deal: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/07/debt-limit-denial/2937087/ Some commenters there have mentioned that a noticeable number of congressional members are currently selling massive amounts of USA corporate shares in preparation for default. I can't prove that it is true, but if it is, they can earn a lot of money defaulting USA. | ||
| ||
