I was wondering if someone could explain how an un-elected political party can force a Federal a shut down on the basis of trying to impeded legislation that was one of the reasons the democratically elected party won?
Printable View
I was wondering if someone could explain how an un-elected political party can force a Federal a shut down on the basis of trying to impeded legislation that was one of the reasons the democratically elected party won?
They were elected.
"un-elected political party"???
Er... all the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States are elected through at least some process by the people.
Congress 113 has successfully managed to do what Congress 112 and even Truman's "Do Nothing" Congress 80 couldn't; that is, fail monumentally at being a Legislative Body that does things.
US Government 503 Service Unavailable:The Congress failed to fulfill an apparently valid request.
US Government 403 Forbidden: The Congress has understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it
US Government 404: Not Found
Some of us consider Congress doing nothing as a good thing. Usually when they do things it results in higher taxes and more onerous regulations on the country. The vast majority of the current crop in both the Senate and the House and from BOTH parties are there for the power and the money. They are, IMO, all liars to some degree and many have sold their souls to anyone who can write a big check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
They may not constitute the best elected government you could have - but they are the best elected govrenment you have got
Is this a first? A government going on strike!
Nope, it was done in the '90s too.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
You do realize a shutdown is expensive to the government, let alone all the employees affected, all the people that won't get services, can't reschedule vacations, and so on? Not agreeing to pay for things we've already bought isn't economically sensible, nor is holding the entire country's operations hostage to attack a law that's been passed, judged constitutional, and despite a number of attempts never come close to being changed through the legislature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
There is no way this is a good thing except to a two year old that's just learned the word 'no.' And even they will start crying once they don't get any food. This is going to guarantee no Republican will get near the White House or Senate majority for years, and hopefully help push through a better method of electing representatives, similar to what was done with the Senate a few decades ago.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
How about:
US Government 301 Moved Permanently: The Congress is not here anymore and you are redirected to http://www.nothere.com
US Government 400 Bad Request: The Congress did not accept your request due to bad syntax
US Government 500 Internal Server Error: The Congress has no available resources to process your request
My question was not very well worded I must admit. I suppose what I'm wondering is one of the reasons the Democrats got elected was health care reform, which is currently being stymied by the Republicans.
The ironic thing is this terrible plan the Tea-party fringe of the Republican party have shut the Gubbymint down for is.............Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
A Republican plan: (follow the links, it is almost hilarious..
If we want to be accurate its "The Heritage Foundation" plan
Who?
From Wiki
Quote:
Early years
Edwin Feulner
The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors.[5] Growing out of discontent with Richard Nixon's embrace of the "liberal consensus" and the nonpolemical, cautious nature of existing think tanks,[6] Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers. With $200,000 from Coors, the Analysis and Research Association was created in 1970. New supporters and board members joined, including petroleum executive Edward Noble and Richard Mellon Scaife. Eventually, the organization split into a public interest law center and a separate public policy foundation, the latter of which was incorporated as The Heritage Foundation on February 16, 1973. Weyrich was its first president. Later, under president Frank J. Walton, the Heritage Foundation introduced using direct mail fundraising and Heritage's annual income grew to $1 million per year in 1976.[
From a real Leftie magazine "Forbes":Quote:
The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[20] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. [21]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...idual-mandate/
They were all for it, until Obama took up their idea.Quote:
How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate
Avik Roy Avik
James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.
This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
ROMNEY: OK.
Utterslime balls.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... acare.html
« Boehner Advises Americans to Delay Getting Cancer for a Year
Main
October 1, 2013
Millions Flee Obamacare
Posted by Andy Borowitz
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog.../boro-flee.jpg
UNITED STATES (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Tea Party loyalists fled the United States in the early morning hours today, seeking what one of them called “the American dream of liberty from health care.”
Harland Dorrinson, 47, a tire salesman from Lexington, Kentucky, packed up his family and whatever belongings he could fit into his Chevy Suburban just hours before the health-insurance exchanges opened, joining the Tea Party’s Freedom Caravan with one goal in mind: escape from Obamacare.
“My father didn’t have health care and neither did my father’s father before him,” he said. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to let my children have it.”
But after driving over ten hours to the Canadian border, Mr. Dorrinson was dismayed to learn that America’s northern neighbor had been in the iron grip of health care for decades.
“The border guard was so calm when he told me, as if it was the most normal thing in the world,” he said. “It’s like he was brainwashed by health care.”
Turning away from Canada, Mr. Dorrinson joined a procession of Tea Party cars heading south to Mexico, noting, “They may have drug cartels and narcoterrorism down there, but at least they’ve kept health care out.”
Mr. Dorrinson was halfway to the southern border before he heard through the Tea Party grapevine that Mexico, too, has public health care, as do Great Britain, Japan, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, New Zealand, Slovenia, and dozens of other countries to which he had considered fleeing.
Undaunted, Mr. Dorrinson said he had begun looking into additional countries, like Chad and North Korea, but he expressed astonishment at a world seemingly overrun by health care.
“It turns out that the United States is one of the last countries on earth to get it,” he said. “It makes me proud to be an American.”
Welcome back.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
What some don't seem to understand is that everything isn't always black and white. There has been graft and corruption in Congress since just about day one. Any government has some of that and, mostly, you can live with it. The issue is that it has reached epic proportions in the last twenty years or so. The so called legislators are so busy chasing dollars they have no time to actually look at and consider the things they pass. There have been several times in the last couple Congresses that many of them voted for bills they hadn't even read. Most bills aren't even prepared by the legislators. They are written by staff and, in some cases, lobbyists. Both parties participate fully in this sham of good governance.
As for US healthcare, I agree that reforms were desperately needed - and that comes from someone who is not a fan of big government. My point on this is that while reforms were certainly needed, Obamacare was not the solution. There are a few good things in Obamacare, no question, but there are many bad things too. Instead of passing a huge package where no one really knew or understood what was in the legislation, they should have brought each area up separately and had open debate and then passed or dropped them based on the merits of each part. Instead it was pushed down everybody's throat.
As for Obama, he'll go down as one of the worst presidents. Part of the problem is that, while Congress has always been fairly partisan, the President needs to rise above all that. Obama has been an absentee from the deliberative process. He has no relationships with anyone in Congress. I expect several of his initiatives to be overturned once they reach the Supreme Court. Before you accuse me of being a racist or right wing lackey, I should point out that I voted for this turkey the first time around. I stand embarrassed by my poor judgement. I had been hoping for someone to rise above the bull excrement put out by both of the major parties.
It's because of a number of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
1. The House of Representatives is elected through rules that allow states to develop their own boundaries for a number of representatives based on their population. State governments typically draw boundaries to retain their own party's dominance in the national body. This was also done with the US Senate (through in those cases it was often the state government that chose their senators) until direct election by all voters in the state was passed as a constitutional amendment, forcing all states to use this standard. A number of states that have a few or no Democratic representatives actually had more people voting Democratic than Republican across the state, but retain Republicans because of how boundaries are drawn. Typically cities with large populations have less representation in the House of Representatives than rural areas.
2. The Republican party has a number of its own rules, one of which is not to disagree when voting. This means if there's disagreement as there is now, all Republicans feel the obligation to support their party, similar to other country's parliamentary systems. Most of them don't agree with the current path but are politically unable to vote any other way.
3. Republican intransigence is actually a new thing. Other than once in the 1990s no party has intentionally held up the workings of the entire government as a means to forward a particular agenda. Republicans can't accomplish anything through voting because they don't control enough of the Senate and of course could not override the President, so they have decided it's better to destroy the livelihood of workers, veterans, anyone receiving assistance, anyone going on vacation to a park, anyone needing a passport or visa and all their associated families and businesses in order to announce their opposition to a particular law. Short of seceding over the fear of eliminating slavery there's not a lot of precedent for what's happening at the moment.
So yes, this is a Republican problem caused by Republicans. They've been digging themselves into a hole for years, and are now just lashing out in frustration. Kind of like Al Shabaab over in Somalia. After steadily losing support it's being whittled down to the psychotics that want to destroy everything just to prove how right they are.
A couple of misleading statements here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
This is true.Quote:
1. The House of Representatives is elected through rules that allow states to develop their own boundaries for a number of representatives based on their population. State governments typically draw boundaries to retain their own party's dominance in the national body. This was also done with the US Senate (through in those cases it was often the state government that chose their senators) until direct election by all voters in the state was passed as a constitutional amendment, forcing all states to use this standard.
This is misleading because both parties do it. I live in Maryland which is heavily democratic overall. There are two regions which lean more Republican - western Maryland and the eastern shore. The Democratic legislature has redrawn boundary lines to essentially disenfranchise those voters and to try and ensure that every one elected from Maryland is a Democrat. So lets be clear about BOTH parties playing dirty.Quote:
A number of states that have a few or no Democratic representatives actually had more people voting Democratic than Republican across the state, but retain Republicans because of how boundaries are drawn.
Um,you haven't noticed that the Democrats do the same thing? I'd also replace the word "most" with "many" in your last sentence.Quote:
2. The Republican party has a number of its own rules, one of which is not to disagree when voting. This means if there's disagreement as there is now, all Republicans feel the obligation to support their party, similar to other country's parliamentary systems. Most of them don't agree with the current path but are politically unable to vote any other way.
Partly wrong. There will be little or no impact on those receiving assistance or those needing passports or visas.Quote:
3. Republican intransigence is actually a new thing. Other than once in the 1990s no party has intentionally held up the workings of the entire government as a means to forward a particular agenda. Republicans can't accomplish anything through voting because they don't control enough of the Senate and of course could not override the President, so they have decided it's better to destroy the livelihood of workers, veterans, anyone receiving assistance, Most receiving assistance will continue to do so. anyone going on vacation to a park, anyone needing a passport or visa and all their associated families and businesses in order to announce their opposition to a particular law. Short of seceding over the fear of eliminating slavery there's not a lot of precedent for what's happening at the moment.
Completely wrong. The problem was caused DIRECTLY by BOTH Democratic and Republican congresses who spent more money than they took in over many years. If there was no debt there COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A DEBT CEILING CRISIS.Quote:
So yes, this is a Republican problem caused by Republicans. They've been digging themselves into a hole for years, and are now just lashing out in frustration. Kind of like Al Shabaab over in Somalia. After steadily losing support it's being whittled down to the psychotics that want to destroy everything just to prove how right they are.
This is an aspect that I really don't get about American politics. You'd think that if people have been elected to a legislative body, they'd actually read and debate the legislation. Last week we actually saw Ted Cruz read "Green Eggs And Ham" and whatever his intentions were, basically he's just held the Congress in contempt and publicly wasted time whilst being paid for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
This I think is a failing of the US Congress as a system. This sort of thing can not happen in a Westminster System in the same way. There's standing orders in the UK (as a result of the Parliament Act 1911) and Australia had its own battle which resulted in the Govenor-General sacking government and then the entire parliament in 1975 for failing to do its job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I would have framed the US Constitution so that at very least, the President is forced to have some consultative process with the Congress by law through some sort of meetings in the same way that the Crown does with the Prime Minister/Premier in Westminster parliaments... but sadly no.
Thanks for the intelligent replies! As a legal alien as Sting would say, I find it very confusing to say the least. It doesn't sound like it works very well at all in these situations? I dread to think of what it would take to move closer to the UK system of government.
Not misleading at all, unless you can't see through blind hatred of the President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Yes both parties do it. Republicans seem to be doing it a lot more to retain a commanding position even with a minority of a state's population. Thus the latest attempts to restrict voting rights. Democrats aren't doing that, so it's not appropriate to assign equal blame. And when was the last time a minority of Democrats shut down the government?Quote:
This is misleading because both parties do it. I live in Maryland which is heavily democratic overall. There are two regions which lean more Republican - western Maryland and the eastern shore. The Democratic legislature has redrawn boundary lines to essentially disenfranchise those voters and to try and ensure that every one elected from Maryland is a Democrat. So lets be clear about BOTH parties playing dirty.
No, no, no. This is absolutely not true in any way shape or form. The Democratic party has never (other than before 1964; and most of those were southern segregationists that all became Republicans) voted in a single block the way Republicans do. When has the Democratic party ever worked as a single body to intentionally harm the country? Even the Republicans were only dumb enough to do it once before. Don't try to make this into an everyone is to blame argument, because it's only one party that is doing this.Quote:
Um,you haven't noticed that the Democrats do the same thing? I'd also replace the word "most" with "many" in your last sentence.
This is not true. It affects passport services, the Veteran's Administration, enforcement of environmental laws, social services and all national parks are closed. Do you have a vacation planned and hotels booked? Too bad! Shoulder surgery at the VA? Got to wait and reschedule? Therapy for your PTSD? Guess you'll just have to go shoot up a multiplex instead.Quote:
Partly wrong. There will be little or no impact on those receiving assistance or those needing passports or visas.
There has been a debt for decades; centuries, even, depending on conditions. It's never been considered a bad thing by either party until Republicans began to tout it as an issue after 1992. ALL of these problems are on the Republican party. Do not even attempt to make an equivalency argument, here.Quote:
Completely wrong. The problem was caused DIRECTLY by BOTH Democratic and Republican congresses who spent more money than they took in over many years. If there was no debt there COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A DEBT CEILING CRISIS.
It was a very early experiment, and to be honest I don't think anyone predicted any party would be so stupid as to intentionally cripple the country for political gain. Obviously the US founders had never heard of Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
One more; it affects anyone in college receiving grants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Actually I think the solution would be to elect representatives directly from states rather than allow local governments to determine boundaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
The US Senate was determined by state governments (many in less open ways than the current House districts) until 1913 when direct elections required all states to have the same system for selecting their representatives. Something similar for the House would solve most of our problems, mainly because it would force the Republican party to become more mainstream or be relegated to the equivalent of European 'national front' parties, with more moderate parties appearing in their place.
This is an interview with the editor of the National Review, which itself is a conservative magazine. It explains what the problem is and should remove any doubt about who is to blame other than the most politically blinded among us:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...tch-the-right/
Oh I don't know...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
- George Washington, Farewell Address, 19 Sep 1796
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=j9N ... &q&f=false
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson, 2 Oct 1780
I just think that the concept of factionalism (which is formalised with the codification of political parties) is just a natural consequence of human nature. Paul even wrote about the problem of factionalism to the Corinthian church in the year 54; Suetonius speaks constantly of factionalism in "The Twelve Caesars" which was written in 121, so it's not like it's a terribly new idea.
Parties such as we know them did begin during the first President's term, but again how many actually went through and intentionally caused damage like this?
This article from the National Review; what kind of party allows itself to be held hostage by a minority of it;s voters, and in turn harm the entire country? Short of the American Know-Nothing party which never really gained any power nationally when has any party been this stupid?
http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/3...m-robert-costa
I guess you didn't read this part of a previous post of mine in this thread: "Before you accuse me of being a racist or right wing lackey, I should point out that I voted for this turkey the first time around. I stand embarrassed by my poor judgement. I had been hoping for someone to rise above the bull excrement put out by both of the major parties."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
If you agree both parties do it, then why did you single out Republicans ? I'm also not sure what you mean when you suggest Republicans are doing it when they are in a minority. How does a minority get to gerrymander districts? Also, what are you talking about with attempts to restrict voting rights? The only thing lately is North Carolina requiring IDs from potential voters to prove citizenship (having a legal right to vote). Are you suggesting that non citizens be allowed to cast ballots?Quote:
Yes both parties do it. Republicans seem to be doing it a lot more to retain a commanding position even with a minority of a state's population. Thus the latest attempts to restrict voting rights. Democrats aren't doing that, so it's not appropriate to assign equal blame. And when was the last time a minority of Democrats shut down the government?
Two things here. There have been many, many times in both the house and senate that votes were along party lines. I don't suggest that it is a good thing, just that it is most definitely NOT a new phenomenon. The highlighted part of your statement is an unnecessary piece of hyperbola.Quote:
No, no, no. This is absolutely not true in any way shape or form. The Democratic party has never (other than before 1964; and most of those were southern segregationists that all became Republicans) voted in a single block the way Republicans do. When has the Democratic party ever worked as a single body to intentionally harm the country? Even the Republicans were only dumb enough to do it once before. Don't try to make this into an everyone is to blame argument, because it's only one party that is doing this.
It affects passport services in what way? And I said nothing about any of the other things you've mentioned. Of course it affects those things.Quote:
This is not true. It affects passport services, the Veteran's Administration, enforcement of environmental laws, social services and all national parks are closed. Do you have a vacation planned and hotels booked? Too bad! Shoulder surgery at the VA? Got to wait and reschedule? Therapy for your PTSD? Guess you'll just have to go shoot up a multiplex instead.
There have been times when the US government has not been in debt. I did not say that it was a new thing. I only implied it was a bad thing. Are you suggesting that, because the Republicans brought it up that makes it a Republican problem and it wouldn't be a problem if no one mentioned it? I hasten to add that the Republicans have done little or nothing to solve the debt issue - though they pontificate at length on it.Quote:
There has been a debt for decades; centuries, even, depending on conditions. It's never been considered a bad thing by either party until Republicans began to tout it as an issue after 1992. ALL of these problems are on the Republican party. Do not even attempt to make an equivalency argument, here.
I have to believe that you misread my entire post. I was in no way defending the Republican party and especially not the Tea Party wing. I had thought that I was pretty clear that I have little regard these days for either side. Your post though comes off as very partisan.
So? It only affects anyone with a federal government grant, not all grants. State and private grants are not affected in the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
Shutting down the government is hurting the country, not hyperbole. Again, Republicans have taken all the things you say 'both parties do' much farther and caused more harm (in money, livelihood, etc) than Democrats ever have.
In addition to everyone I've mentioned so far, military reservists have had their practices and training cancelled, which means they will not be getting paid. The B&B where I'm staying in Cumberland next week has had a dozen cancellations from people using the C&O Canal National Park. So it's not only hurting college students, federal employees and contractors, the military, and tourists, it's also hitting small businesses!
And I did read your first sentence. I won't say you're a racist, but you are definitely a right-wing lackey if you're defending the shutdown. If not, how jaded do you have to be to not realize that a minority of one party's created this mess?
Here's your original statement. Doesn't sound exactly anti-shutdown and much as a blind right-wing rant, does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
If this dog & pony show drags on until the debt ceiling HAS to be addressed, the long term consequences to the United States and the global financial markets are going to be very real. If the U.S. defaults on its debt for the first time in history, you can mark that as the day when this republic officially entered its period of decline.
The House could be done with this utter foolishness in a few minutes if Boehner would allow the up or down vote on the clean CR that most (sane) members of the House want. But he will not.
And now the Washington Post Editorial staff. Hardly a leftist bunch in any situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...57f_story.html
I owe you an apology. I failed to realize you were pulling everyone's leg. That part of your post blew your cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
No worries. There's no way you can argue the points, anyway.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/02/this ... obamacare/
Congressmen, this is about shutting down Obamacare.
Democrats keep talking about our refusal to compromise. They don’t realize our compromise is defunding Obamacare. We actually want to repeal it.
This is it. Our endgame is to leave the whole thing shut down until the President defunds Obamacare. And if he does not defund Obamacare, we leave the whole thing shut down.
- Erick Erickson, RedState, 2 Oct 2013
I'm prepared to take this at face value. Mr Erickson repeats the sentiments over at Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... -shutdown/
From what I can gather about Obamacare, it basically sets up a bunch of rules for insurers designed at making the whole thing cheaper (which is a fair end).
Really only two groups appear to hate it, namely those who think that a single-payer government system like Britain's NHS or Australia's Medicare is the way to go (and I think the most sensible because it's the ultimately the cheapest) and the free-market laissez-faire zealots who are opposed to any government interference even if it results in cheaper prices.
I read through the regulations and if you decide to give Obamacare a miss, you'd only be fined a maximum of US$100 or if the policy costs more than 10% of your annual income, or you already don't pay federal income tax, you'd pay zero.
I could be wrong about this but if this is seriously all that this is over, then I'm afraid Congress 113 is even more toxic than I thought it was. Obamacare passed the House of Reps more than 40 times and if that had happened in Australia, it would have already forced a double dissolution.
I am honestly gobsmacked at how many people have swallowed Obama's bull**** hook, line and sinker when he himself has more to be held accountable for in this crisis than anyone else.
If only he were one tenth as good a president as he is at PR and making people believe in his blatant hypocrisy.
Two things you need to be aware of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
1. The United States is not a republic, it's an empire. It hasn't been a republic for a long time. And Obama has only been one to continue that transformation.
2. The United States is already well on the decline.
And how pray tell is one supposed to negotiate with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
Our endgame is to leave the whole thing shut down until the President defunds Obamacare. And if he does not defund Obamacare, we leave the whole thing shut down.
Okay, Obama repeals Obamacare. It still doesn't change the fact that Congress is broken and that the health care system is also broken; it's been doomed since February 17, 1971 when Nixon threw it to the lions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHTte8jRLk
Republicans have gone off the deep end in a way that hasn't happened really ever at the national level.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
Notice all you get from posters here is conservative platitudes.
How about you consider for a second why it is that the republicans are even in such a position to have this bargaining power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
It's because Obama has once again presided over a government that has yet again hit the debt ceiling, and is asking for another gigantic extension on its credit limit. Forcing Obama into these negotiations.
That's what you need to understand. The ball has always been in Obama's court on this issue right from the outset. He has had ample opportunity to propose ways of bringing the US budget under control (as it so desperately needs to be done), but has instead gone in completely the other direction, with an utter failure of a stimulus policy which is ridiculously laughable from a cost:benefit analysis. He also campaigned on and subsequently elected on the promise that he would hold Wall Street to account. Instead, not only has he never once held Wall Street to account, he's continually been bailing it out!
If Obama had been able to keep the books in order, the republicans would have ZERO power to stop Obamacare from going ahead. And the republicans have already been kind enough to Obama, caving into Obama's demand for conformity (please don't bull**** yourself into thinking Obama is the one looking for compromise) the last few times the debt ceiling came up by allowing Obamacare to be unimpeded. But it seems that this time: enough is enough. And rightly so. The president needs to be taught a lesson in how to keep spending in order. Balancing the budget is, right now, a FAR more urgent cause for the United States than this healthcare bill.
So the bottom line is this, if Obama can show us he doesn't have to keep raising the United States' already dizzyingly high debt ceiling to get his programs working - then good for him. But if not - he only proves his incompetence and congress is obligated to hold him to account - which is what they're doing right now. And keep in mind, the Republicans' motion is not to scrap Obamacare, but to delay its mandate for one year. More than enough time for Obama to be able to show he at least has SOMETHING in mind to bring the budget under control, don't you think?
To finish, a quote from Obama before getting elected, in 2006:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit
is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government
can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing
financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s
reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us
domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops
here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today
onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt
problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
You know what? I think he was onto something!
Don't get the far right confused with a large number of Americans who oppose Obamacare. I definitely would not have chosen this way to attack it though, I think its a poor strategy and potentially harmful to the country if it goes on too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
{quote]From what I can gather about Obamacare, it basically sets up a bunch of rules for insurers designed at making the whole thing cheaper (which is a fair end).[/quote]
Do you really believe that a 2000 plus page bill only did that? There are a multitude of things in it.
The maximum fines can be much more that $100. You only looked at the low end of the scale.Quote:
I read through the regulations and if you decide to give Obamacare a miss, you'd only be fined a maximum of US$100 or if the policy costs more than 10% of your annual income, or you already don't pay federal income tax, you'd pay zero.
The Congress has been toxic for a while now, both sides.Quote:
I could be wrong about this but if this is seriously all that this is over, then I'm afraid Congress 113 is even more toxic than I thought it was. Obamacare passed the House of Reps more than 40 times and if that had happened in Australia, it would have already forced a double dissolution.
All of this leaves me astonished at how amazingly good Obama and the Democrats have gotten with their PR and spin.
...the fact that they've actually gotten so many people to think it's simply a case of the big bad Republicans just trying to mess with everything the poor, mistreated, wanting to compromise President does. And like how Obama basically said "this healthcare bill has nothing to do with the debt ceiling"... and people ACTUALLY believed him. WOWWWW. He has you hook, line and sinker, my children.
You must understand that Obama inherited the trouble caused by many administrations that came before him. He would need more than 2 terms to fix things, and that's even if his policies are the right ones in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
This is a numbers game in the House. Congress 113 like Congress 112 has a Republican majority in the lower house and a Democrat majority in the Upper House. Congress 112 was officially the least productive Congress ever in terms of legislation passed. Congress 113 is not markedly different.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
Cut spending to ZERO. I mean cut all of it. On FY2012 figures:Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
Taxation receipts = $2,449bn
US Federal Debt today = $16,750bn
Current 10yr Note rate= 2.75%
And you're still looking at a repayment date of the debt of 21st Sep 2021.
Wall St can not be held to account because they pretty well much own both political parties and have done for years. It's pretty well much even impossible to negotiate to increase taxation by even a tiny bit because of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
I'm not for a second thinking Obama is the one looking for compromise, it's just that he happens to be the prize pig in charge of this exercise in snidery. There honestly is no difference between the two parties and this Congress merely serves as further proof. Both sides have pretty well much been willfully negligent for quite some time now, yet the American people still vote for them for some bizarre reason.