Search forums

Forums

Export thread

USA Federal government: CLOSED

Limit: 500

Oct 1, 2013#1

strawman

The government shutdown went into effect this morning, with the Office of Management and Budget sending the following note, "Agencies should now execute plans for an orderly shutdown due to the absence of appropriations" to federal employees.

It's been 18 years since the government last shut down for 21 days during the Clinton administration. However there are only 17 days until the government is expected to default on debt obligations this time, so it is expected this shutdown will not last as long.

Given that there's significant discussion regarding the shutdown in other threads, it might be useful to have a thread of its own to observe and comment from.

Oct 1, 2013#2

Covar

This whole thing just reminds me of

Oct 1, 2013#3

sixpackshaker

Happy Birthday Yosemite Park! You're Closed!!!!

Oct 1, 2013#4

Shakey

Veterans break past World War II Memorial barricade

Oct 1, 2013#5

Eriol

Shakey said:
Veterans break past World War II Memorial barricade

There's some non-sense here (I know, I could have said nonsense, but bare with me (bear with me? hmm... not sure) ) in that if you close the place, you have to hire security guards, which will cost money. But if you keep some of these places open that are essentially "self-touring" (like many memorials) you would need to hire janitors to pick up garbage, etc. But wouldn't 1-2 janitors be less than the number of security guards they apparently hired, and thus cost less money?

Just wondering out loud here.

Oct 1, 2013#6

Charlie Don't Surf

Congressional Republicans are stupid fucking destructive babies, and they're all going to get re-elected.

Oct 1, 2013#7

Covar

Eriol said:
There's some non-sense here (I know, I could have said nonsense, but bare with me (bear with me? hmm... not sure) ) in that if you close the place, you have to hire security guards, which will cost money. But if you keep some of these places open that are essentially "self-touring" (like many memorials) you would need to hire janitors to pick up garbage, etc. But wouldn't 1-2 janitors be less than the number of security guards they apparently hired, and thus cost less money?

Just wondering out loud here.

You're applying logic to the way government operates. What you suggest would make sense, so of course the opposite must happen.

Oct 1, 2013#8

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Congressional Republicans are stupid fucking destructive babies, and they're all going to get re-elected.

You think? I think this is going to backfire on them huge. Expect total democrat control in the next election is my guess.

Oct 1, 2013#9

Dave

I doubt it, @Espy. The general republican electorate absolutely love to vote against their own interests and vote in these radical idiots. I've never seen a more uninformed electorate in my life.

Oct 1, 2013#10

Charlie Don't Surf

Espy said:
You think? I think this is going to backfire on them huge. Expect total democrat control in the next election is my guess.

I hope you're right, but- district lines. Democrat congressional candidates in 2012 received more votes than Republican congressional candidates

Oct 1, 2013#11

PatrThom

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I hope you're right, but- district lines. Democrat congressional candidates in 2012 received more votes than Republican congressional candidates

That sounds more like a turnout issue rather than a party one.

--Patrick

Oct 1, 2013#12

Charlie Don't Surf

PatrThom said:
That sounds more like a turnout issue rather than a party one.

--Patrick

it's gerrymandering

Oct 1, 2013#13

GasBandit

Apart from the so-called "tea party," there is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Both parties are just as complicit. That said, the shutdown is a lot more sound and fury than actual crisis.

All that said, I don't think this will be what pushes the 2014 midterms one way or the other. There's plenty of time for much more stupifying ridiculousness between now and this time next year.

Oct 1, 2013#14

D

Dubyamn

PatrThom said:
That sounds more like a turnout issue rather than a party one.

--Patrick

No it's a gerrymandering problem.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...he_congressional_districts_back_together.html

Fun little game that shows how Gerrymandering can be used to carve out safe republican seats by both putting little chunks of opposition strongholds in with large areas of your party control or by making sure to link as many opposition strongholds as possible to give the opposition one assured seat while giving you enough of your voters to secure 4 safe seats.

Oct 1, 2013#15

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Both parties are just as complicit.

this is false

Oct 1, 2013#16

PatrThom

Charlie Don't Surf said:
it's gerrymandering

Dubyamn said:
No it's a gerrymandering problem.

I know about Gerrymandering, and I've heard of solutions posed to relieve it, but it sounded like you were stating total number of votes cast, not districts won, seats available, nor anything like that.

--Patrick

Oct 1, 2013#17

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
this is false

It takes 2 to tango. Democrats were given a number of bills they could have buckled for and prevented the shutdown, same as Republicans. They have just as much a hand in it, if not more. If they'd passed a budget (which they haven't done in 7 years, not even when they had complete control of both houses AND the executive branch) this wouldn't have even been a possibility.

Oct 1, 2013#18

D

Dubyamn

PatrThom said:
I know about Gerrymandering, and I've heard of solutions posed to relieve it, but it sounded like you were stating total number of votes cast, not districts won, seats available, nor anything like that.

--Patrick

That is what he was saying though. That the number of votes for Democrat congressmen was greater than the number of votes cast for Republican congressmen. But the congress right now has a Republican majority due to Gerrymandering.

Oct 1, 2013#19

PatrThom

Ah. That fits the description, then.
No less outrageous, though. I'm of the opinion that elections should not be able to be rigged/gamed, even though it just seems to keep happening.

--Patrick

Oct 1, 2013#20

strawman

Eriol said:
But wouldn't 1-2 janitors be less than the number of security guards they apparently hired, and thus cost less money?

Welcome to accounting for Very Large Entities. In this case security funding won't be cut, but park staff will be cut. Two different budgets. They may both take from the same pot, but the costs are "contained" which means that even if another pot has to be larger, the accountants (and thus congress) are satisfied that the expenditure of the pot they're interested in has gone down.

Oct 1, 2013#21

GasBandit

Economic shockwaves due to shutdown fail to materialize, Dow up 61, Nasdaq climbs 1.2% (46.5).

Oct 1, 2013#22

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Economic shockwaves due to shutdown fail to materialize, Dow up 61, Nasdaq climbs 1.2% (46.5).

You would figure that with the average age of Congresspeople being, like, 108 or something (down from 125 since Strom Thurmond died), these people would have some concept of "long term strategy." Either that, or this is the sign of people taking advantage of the deals to be found in the market while the panickers unload and the long-termers increase their holdings.

--Patrick

Oct 1, 2013#23

Dave

GasBandit said:
That said, the shutdown is a lot more sound and fury than actual crisis.

Tell that to the people who are at home and not getting paid today. Have you no empathy for those caught in the middle?

Oct 1, 2013#24

strawman

The BBC's list of top stories, 8 items long, has 3 covering the shutdown. One of them is fascinating to me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24342521

The most interesting part, to me, is the last two paragraphs:

...another reason why the United States has shutdown crises and other countries don't - because the United States can afford to. At least up until now, the American economy has been able to continue to grind along despite shutdown disruptions that would stagger other nations.

"Constant-shutdown, permanent-emergency governance is so destructive that no other serious country engages in or could tolerate it," James Fallows writes in the Atlantic. "The United States can afford it only because we are - still - so rich, with so much margin for waste and error."

As the United States approached a budget crisis that will shut down many federal services and affect more than 700,000 workers, other countries looked on with a mixture of puzzlement and dread.

For most of the world, a government shutdown is very bad news - the result of revolution, invasion or disaster. Even in the middle of its ongoing civil war, the Syrian government has continued to pay its bills and workers' wages.

That leaders of one of the most powerful nations on earth willingly provoked a crisis that suspends public services and decreases economic growth is astonishing to many.

American policymakers "are facing the unthinkable prospect of shutting down the government as they squabble over the inconsequential accomplishment of a 10-week funding extension", Mexico's The News wrote in an editorial.

In the United States, however, government shutdowns - or the threat thereof - have become an accepted negotiating tactic, thanks to the quirks of the American federal system, which allows different branches of government to be controlled by different parties. It was a structure devised by the nation's founders to encourage compromise and deliberation, but lately has had just the opposite effect.

Elsewhere in the world, such shutdowns are practically impossible. The parliamentary system used by most European democracies ensures that the executive and legislature are controlled by the same party or coalition. Conceivably, a parliament could refuse to pass a budget proposed by the prime minister, but such an action would likely trigger a failure of the government and a new election - witness the current situation in the Netherlands, where Prime Minister Mark Rutte's government faced a no-confidence vote at the start of debate over his 2014 budget proposal. And even when there is a gap prior to a new government taking office, national services continue to operate.

In non-parliamentary democracies, such as Brazil, a strong executive branch has the ability to keep the lights on during a budget impasse. Such was the case in the United States as well, until a 1980 Carter administration interpretation of the 1884 Anti-Deficiency Act strictly limited the powers of federal agencies in the absence of congressional funding authorisations.
Now, as the latest shutdown crisis plays out, policymakers in other nations are left to ponder the worldwide impact of the impasse.

"Globalisation … means every country is in it together," writes David Blanchflower in the Independent in the UK. "Americans sneeze and Brits catch the flu."

"Canadians can only pray their economy won't be collateral damage," writes John Ibbitson in Canada's Globe and Mail. "Anything that drags down the American economy drags the Canadian economy down with it."

And this could be another reason why the United States has shutdown crises and other countries don't - because the United States can afford to. At least up until now, the American economy has been able to continue to grind along despite shutdown disruptions that would stagger other nations.

"Constant-shutdown, permanent-emergency governance is so destructive that no other serious country engages in or could tolerate it," James Fallows writes in the Atlantic. "The United States can afford it only because we are - still - so rich, with so much margin for waste and error."

Oct 1, 2013#25

Gilgamesh

Dave said:
Tell that to the people who are at home and not getting paid today. Have you no empathy for those caught in the middle?

How can you ask him that question?

:rofl:

Of course he doesn't.

Oct 1, 2013#26

PatrThom

@GasBandit only has empathy for people who deserve it, @Dave. You know that.

--Patrick

Oct 1, 2013#27

strawman

Dave said:
Tell that to the people who are at home and not getting paid today. Have you no empathy for those caught in the middle?

Any business is subject to disruptions of one kind or another. Federal employees are not immune. Lots of businesses fail, shutdown, or furlough their workers in the face of bad executive decisions.

Of course it's bad for them, but 11.3 million people who want to work are unemployed. Yes, these people are in a bad spot, but they still have a job which they'll be able to return to as soon as congress gets its rear in gear.

Oct 1, 2013#28

GasBandit

Dave said:
Tell that to the people who are at home and not getting paid today. Have you no empathy for those caught in the middle?

It does suck to be them. It's unfortunate that our federal government has become analogous to a barbed arrowhead lodged in the meat of our country and will require a large amount of pain and blood before healing can begin, but maybe one day there will be enough pain so that the downtrodden wake up and spend their last 50 bucks on torches and pitchforks before descending on the National Mall.

Oct 1, 2013#29

Gilgamesh

Oct 1, 2013#30

strawman

3 years ago Obama pushed congress to pass the healthcare act, which not one republican voted for. Now Obama is calling the healthcare dissent an "ideological crusade."

In the recent past legislation that has withstood the test of time has been bipartisan. The healthcare act was not.

Why are the democrats so surprised that the republicans are using procedural warfare to turn that legislation around?

As usual, Obama says "I want to work across the aisle..." during campaign speeches, then says, "it's my way or the highway" when the other side wants to change legislation.

Oct 1, 2013#31

GasBandit

stienman said:
As usual, Obama says "I want to work across the aisle..." during campaign speeches, then says, "it's my way or the highway" when the other side wants to change legislation.

Hell, he said and did both yesterday. In practically the same breath in a speech, he said "I'm willing to sit down and work with republicans" and then followed it up with demanding they pass a clean CR with no strings attached.

But now the shutdown is really starting to hit home... the KKK has had to cancel a rally because of it.

Oct 1, 2013#32

Dave

Which means republicans are feeling the effect.

(Not that all republicans are racist, but all racists are republican. :troll:

)

Oct 1, 2013#33

sixpackshaker

stienman said:
In the recent past legislation that has withstood the test of time has been bipartisan. The healthcare act was not.

But the Voting Rights Act did not have Billion Dollar Corporations throwing around money to keep it from passing.

Oct 1, 2013#34

GasBandit

Dave said:
Which means republicans are feeling the effect.

(Not that all republicans are racist, but all racists are republican. )

6 incredibly racist comments made by Obama administration officials

Plus, the whole impetus behind the Democrat party platform is the cloying soft racism of lowered expectations ("you can't possibly make it on your own because you're just a minority")

Oct 1, 2013#35

strawman

"The GOP counteroffer rejected by the Senate on Tuesday would have delayed Obamacare for a year and ended federally provided health care for the president, members of Congress and their staff while funding the government for 11 weeks."

Obama is already unilaterally (and some say illegally) delaying significant portions of the healthcare act by a year already, and who here honestly thinks that the representatives should have a different healthcare system than the one they are forcing on citizens?

Obama and the Senate played chicken with the US economy at stake over these simple concessions?

The republicans aren't going to back down. If it isn't this, then it'll be the sequester at the middle of the month. If it isn't that it'll be some other method for them to reassert the reality that the healthcare act is partisan and has NO support from a huge portion of the representatives and their constituents.

Obama and the democrats are desperately trying to maintain just enough control to put so much of it into effect that it'd be harder to back out of, but they should realize by now that this can't work out for them.

It's the only game they've got though.

Oct 1, 2013#36

GasBandit

I wish I had your rosy optimism, Stienman. I don't think much of the intestinal fortitude of republicans. At least 8 of them have already bolted in the house, publicly saying that they should go ahead and cave.

Oct 1, 2013#37

Krisken

I'mma just gonna sit on the side and watch you fine fellas slug this one out.

Oct 1, 2013#38

Eriol

stienman said:
who here honestly thinks that the representatives should have a different healthcare system than the one they are forcing on citizens?

Personally I think that anything other than this is ludicrous. Make the people in power use what they make for everybody else. Apply this to public transit (IE: if you promote public transit as "what people should use" then you lose your right to drive around for anything related to work) and you'll REALLY see the whining start. Let them use their own cars on their own time for driving their kids to baseball practice, or whatever, but just see how much they HATE having to go on the train and buses with everybody else. But make their health care the same as medicare (or whatever poor people are supposed to be happy with) and see how that goes.

Somebody proposed that a while back in a city I used to live in (Calgary) because city council was promoting the use of transit so much due to lack of parking in the downtown core. Said that they shouldn't get their parking spots at City Hall, and have to use transit every day, since they seemed to think it was such a great idea. Needless to say they did NOT vote that for themselves. Then mysteriously they stopped promoting transit as loudly! Gee I wonder why?

Oct 1, 2013#39

Ravenpoe

Oct 1, 2013#40

strawman

Oct 1, 2013#41

Ravenpoe

Oct 1, 2013#42

Dave

The fact that people in this thread think it's the Democrats who did this frankly astounds me. You guys are insane.

Oct 1, 2013#43

Shakey

Dave said:
The fact that people in this thread think it's the Democrats who did this frankly astounds me. You guys are insane.

They should cave to the republicans demands! They always do!

Oct 1, 2013#44

GasBandit

Dave said:
The fact that people in this thread think it's the Democrats who did this frankly astounds me. You guys are insane.

CNN Polling shows a not insubstantial portion of the country agrees, though the republican blamers are more numerous. The split went 46% blame republicans, 36% blame democrats. 57% of the nation oppose TAHA, but 60% of the nation would rather have TAHA than a shutdown.

So whether either of us agrees with one side of the other, the fact remains that there is a very real disagreement about not only the bill, but whose fault this mess is.

Oct 1, 2013#45

Hailey Knight

We love consistency.

Congress will never have to come down to the step of us peasants because they're the ones who control their pay and care. They won't vote against their own well-being, even if it's only the same well-being foisted by them on others.

Oct 1, 2013#46

D

Dubyamn

Eriol said:
Personally I think that anything other than this is ludicrous. Make the people in power use what they make for everybody else. Apply this to public transit (IE: if you promote public transit as "what people should use" then you lose your right to drive around for anything related to work) and you'll REALLY see the whining start. Let them use their own cars on their own time for driving their kids to baseball practice, or whatever, but just see how much they HATE having to go on the train and buses with everybody else. But make their health care the same as medicare (or whatever poor people are supposed to be happy with) and see how that goes.

Somebody proposed that a while back in a city I used to live in (Calgary) because city council was promoting the use of transit so much due to lack of parking in the downtown core. Said that they shouldn't get their parking spots at City Hall, and have to use transit every day, since they seemed to think it was such a great idea. Needless to say they did NOT vote that for themselves. Then mysteriously they stopped promoting transit as loudly! Gee I wonder why?

Well congress and senators having to get their own health insurance through the exchanges is already a part of the healthcare bill. Democrats actually supported it full heartedly when a republican put it in as a sort of "poison pill."

The Vitter Amendment (Which I assume we're talking about) actually dealt with cutting off the money that would be spent buying congressional aides health insurance off the exchanges. Which would mean that Congressional aides would have to buy their own health insurance with no assistance from the government making it a de facto pay cut with no real benefit.

I do wish we could have rules like you are proposing for public transit. Maybe then America could actually come up with decent mass transit outside of New York. I honestly would love to take the train into work but it turns a 30 minute hellish drive into a 2 hour hellish experience.

Oct 1, 2013#47

TommiR

Eriol said:
Somebody proposed that a while back in a city I used to live in (Calgary) because city council was promoting the use of transit so much due to lack of parking in the downtown core. Said that they shouldn't get their parking spots at City Hall, and have to use transit every day, since they seemed to think it was such a great idea. Needless to say they did NOT vote that for themselves. Then mysteriously they stopped promoting transit as loudly! Gee I wonder why?

Well, mass transit does have several advantages over private cars. Not perhaps for the individual, but for the society as a whole. For instance it is more fuel-efficient, more environment-friendly, and can transport more people per hour (relieving congestion). I think efficient mass transit is generally a good thing, and it's a shame if a possibly good idea gets killed like that.

GasBandit said:
CNN Polling shows a not insubstantial portion of the country agrees, though the republican blamers are more numerous. The split went 46% blame republicans, 36% blame democrats. 57% of the nation oppose TAHA, but 60% of the nation would rather have TAHA than a shutdown.

So whether either of us agrees with one side of the other, the fact remains that there is a very real disagreement about not only the bill, but whose fault this mess is.

Those percentages for blame seem to rather closely match support numbers for the parties (currently 42-38) . I wonder if there might be a correlation there.

Dubyamn said:
I do wish we could have rules like you are proposing for public transit. Maybe then America could actually come up with decent mass transit outside of New York. I honestly would love to take the train into work but it turns a 30 minute hellish drive into a 2 hour hellish experience.

The fact of the matter is that most US cities are simply not well suited for creating an efficient mass transit system. They tend to be spread out like a carpet, extending in all directions, which makes it difficult to provide adequate coverage, which means there are less resources and attention devoted to it's development. Cities where the habitation is concentrated into "strands" is a lot easier and cheaper to figure out a good mass transit scheme for.

Oct 2, 2013#48

PatrThom

Dave said:
The fact that people in this thread think it's the Democrats who did this frankly astounds me. You guys are insane.

Well obviously someone is to blame.

...but it's not us!

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2013#49

D

Dubyamn

TommiR said:
The fact of the matter is that most US cities are simply not well suited for creating an efficient mass transit system. They tend to be spread out like a carpet, extending in all directions, which makes it difficult to provide adequate coverage, which means there are less resources and attention devoted to it's development. Cities where the habitation is concentrated into "strands" is a lot easier and cheaper to figure out a good mass transit scheme for.

It's America we put a man on the goddamn moon and were able to land multiple probes on Mars. I think we can come up with a way to create a good mass transit system if we put our minds to it.

It won't be cheap probably won't be a huge money maker but a good transit system is the greatest thing a city can have going for it.

Oct 2, 2013#50

PatrThom

Dubyamn said:
a good transit system is the greatest thing a city can have going for it.

...and the accompanying lack of congestion and cars.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2013#51

figmentPez

I find it highly annoying that people are talking about this like it's something that has never happened before. Uh, yeah, 17 times since 1977. It has happened before, don't act like this is some new tactic, or liken it to terrorism.

Oct 2, 2013#52

Covar

figmentPez said:
I find it highly annoying that people are talking about this like it's something that has never happened before. Uh, yeah, 17 times since 1977. It has happened before, don't act like this is some new tactic, or liken it to terrorism.

BUT TEH EVIL REPUBLICANS!

In all seriousness it's amazing what is being closed and what is staying up and running. It's also telling on how the executive branch wants this to be perceived.

Oct 2, 2013#53

sixpackshaker

But it has not been used in nearly 20 years because it ended a very popular GOP movement.

Oct 2, 2013#54

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
But it has not been used in nearly 20 years because it ended a very popular GOP movement.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Can you explain what you mean? I assumed it hadn't been used in 20+ years because the federal government was, for some time, running a surplus (or at least not as huge a deficit).

Oct 2, 2013#55

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
But it has not been used in nearly 20 years because it ended a very popular GOP movement.

Not really. That's a (democrat aligned) media myth. Republicans lost 9 house seats, but gained 2 senate seats in the next election.

Oct 2, 2013#56

Krisken

No, only in the Clinton years did they have a surplus.

Oct 2, 2013#57

sixpackshaker

stienman said:
I don't understand what you're talking about. Can you explain what you mean? I assumed it hadn't been used in 20+ years because the federal government was, for some time, running a surplus (or at least not as huge a deficit).

The Contract with America was pretty much done at that point. Newt lost a lot of influence and was shown the door not too long afterwards.

Oct 2, 2013#58

Hailey Knight

Fun things I read today:

Boner is trying to turn it around and say Obama is the cause of the shutdown by not folding, disregarding that the majority of Congress is not against the president on this.

NASA's next Mars mission has a brief window to launch, but won't be able to unless the government gets up and running. It'll have to wait until 2016 to try if it misses the window, so millions of dollars and research will have been wasted.

One Senator has put forward a bill that says Congress doesn't get paid during a shutdown. Yeah, I see a lot of Congress members voting for that :awesome:

.

The DC zoo is under federal budget, so even while being furloughed I can't fucking go to the zoo! BLARGH!*

*context: I've been wanted to spend a day at the zoo by myself, but haven't been able to get a weekday off. Now when I finally have time off, albeit forced, I can't go.

Oct 2, 2013#59

strawman

Quotemander Prime said:
the majority of Congress is not against the president on this.

What do you mean? There are 287 republicans in the house and senate, and only 246 democrats in the house and senate.

It would take 21 republicans to cross over on this issue to make your statement true - this might be the case, but it would surprise me. Some have crossed over, but that many?

Oct 2, 2013#60

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
What do you mean? There are 287 republicans in the house and senate, and only 246 democrats in the house and senate.

It would take 21 republicans to cross over on this issue to make your statement true - this might be the case, but it would surprise me. Some have crossed over, but that many?

I thought they had; I must've misread the article. Never mind.

Oct 2, 2013#61

Gilgamesh

My favorite part of the GoP talking heads on this whole thing has been this:

-We don't know why the Democrats won't listen to the American people! The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare!-

3 seconds later

-Polls show that 43% of Americans are for Obama Care, 49% are against it-

The double talk coming out of the GoP camp is just daily entertainment.

Oct 2, 2013#62

drawn_inward

This was in my email this morning from NIH regarding the shutdown (spoilered for length):

Dear Principal Investigator, Reviewer, or Signing Official:
The Government Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 ended on September 30, 2013 at midnight EST and an Appropriation Act for FY2014 has not been passed leading to a lapse in Federal funding. We are providing the following information to answer questions you may have on the impact this lapse in appropriation will have on your grant/cooperative agreement or the availability of NIH’s systems and services.
RESUMING OPERATIONS
You are encouraged to stay tuned to the national media to determine when the Federal Government will resume operations. Depending on the length of the funding lapse, once NIH non-excepted staff are authorized to resume operations it will take time for full operations to be resumed. Depending on the length of the funding lapse, the eRA system may require at least one business day after operations resume. We ask for patience when trying to contact NIH staff once operations resume since there will be a backlog of information to process.
CONTACT WITH NIH STAFF
E-mail, Phone, Fax, and Postal Mail Contacts: For the duration of the funding lapse, NIH extramural employees will be prohibited from working (remotely or in the office). Consequently, there will be no access to voice mail, e-mail, fax, or postal mail during this period. Mail requiring someone to sign/accept may not be received. All other postal mail, fax, and voice mail communications will not be acted upon until after operations resume. It is recommended that you delay sending such communications until after operations resume.
Help Desk Support: For the duration of the funding lapse, all help desks, central e-mail boxes, and web ticketing systems for questions related to NIH grants policy and electronic grants systems will not be available, including the eRA Helpdesk and Grants Information Services.
In the event of an emergency involving human safety, please contact Dr. Sally Rockey at rockeysa@od.nih.gov.
SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS
For the duration of the funding lapse, applicants are strongly encouraged not to submit paper or electronic grant applications to NIH during the period of the lapse. Adjustments to application submission dates that occur during the funding lapse will be announced once operations resume. For any applications submitted immediately prior to or during the funding lapse, here is what will happen.
a. For electronic submissions through Grants.gov: Grants.gov will be open and can accept electronic applications. However, applications will not be processed by NIH until the eRA Systems are back on-line. NIH will ensure that all applications submitted within the two business days before or during the funding lapse will receive the full viewing window once the systems are back on-line.
b. For electronic submission of multi-project applications through NIH’s ASSIST system: The ASISST system will not be available until NIH systems are back on-line.
c. Paper Submissions: Staff will not be available to receive paper applications during a funding lapse.
The safest course is to wait to submit any application to NIH until after operations resume and a Notice in the NIH Guide concerning adjusted submission dates is posted.
PEER REVIEW AND COUNCIL MEETINGS
Initial Peer Review Meetings: For the duration of the funding lapse, the NIH will not be able to conduct initial peer review meetings – whether in-person or through teleconferences or other electronic media. Also during this time, the NIH staff will not be able to send or receive email messages, or update website information, and NIH computer systems that support review functions will not be operational. When operations resume, those meetings will be re-scheduled and the pending applications will be processed and reviewed as soon as possible.
Also, the results, including final impact scores and summary statements, of some peer review meetings that took place prior to the orderly shutdown of operations may not be available until operations resume. Therefore, applicants with applications going through the peer review process should stay tuned to the national news to determine when operations of the government resume, and then check the NIH website for information on any review meetings that may have been extended or re-scheduled. The results of meetings held prior to a potential funding lapse will be released as soon as possible after resumption of operations.
Individuals who had agreed to serve on NIH review panels (”study sections”) that were scheduled to meet during the funding lapse will not be able to access the Internet Assisted Review (IAR) site or other NIH web-based systems during that time. Reviewers who were scheduled to travel for a review meeting on a day when operations are down will not be able to board a plane or train, and will be sent instructions on how to handle their reservations. Reviewers who are attending an NIH review panel on the day of orderly shutdown will be able to change their travel plans and return home. Therefore, peer reviewers should stay tuned to the national news to determine when operations of the NIH will resume, and then check the NIH website for information on meetings that have been re-scheduled. As soon as possible after operations resume, the NIH Scientific Review Officer in charge of the review meeting will contact those reviewers with more detailed information.
Advisory Council Review: The NIH will not be able to conduct Advisory Council review meetings – whether in-person or through teleconferences or other electronic media - during the funding lapse. Also during this time, the NIH staff will not be able to send or receive email messages, or update website information, and NIH computer systems that support review functions will not be operational. Therefore, no applications will be processed for Council review or be taken to Council meetings during that time. When operations resume, those pending applications will be processed, and meetings will be re-scheduled as soon as possible.
Applicants with applications pending Council review during that time should check the NIH website for information after operations resume. Advisory Council members should stay tuned to the national news to determine when operations of the government will resume, and then check the NIH website for information on Council meetings that have been re-scheduled. As soon as possible after operations resume, the NIH Executive Secretary in charge of the Council meeting will contact those Council members with more detailed information.
AWARDED GRANTS
Currently Active Grant Awards: For the duration of the funding lapse, all work and activities performed under currently active NIH grant awards may continue. However, see below for limits on performing many of the reporting requirements associated with NIH grant funding.
Progress Reports:
a. Electronically Submitted Progress Reports: For any progress reports due during the funding lapse, the eRA Commons will not be accessible. Users will need to wait until the eRA Commons is back on-line before these progress reports can be submitted.
b. Paper Submitted Progress Reports: No NIH staff will be available to receive paper progress reports. Therefore, institutions are encouraged to delay mailing all paper progress reports due during the funding lapse until after operations resume.
Notice of Awards (NoAs): No NIH grant awards will be processed for the duration of the funding lapse. For any awards processed before the funding lapse that have an issue date during the funding lapse, the awards will not be sent to the grantee on the issue date. Once operations resume, all pending NoAs will be sent. This will not affect the start date nor the issue date of these awards; it just affects the date the award document is actually sent to the grantee and available for access in the eRA Commons. In the absence of actually receiving the NoA, institutions may use pre-award costs authority at their own risk.
No-cost Extension Notifications: The eRA Commons will not be accessible during the funding lapse. Further, no-cost extension notification cannot be submitted via the Commons once the expiration date of the grant has passed. For any grants due to expire during the funding lapse that plans to be given a no-cost extension, a paper notification to the IC will be required after operations resume.
General Access to eRA Commons and Other OER-Supported Systems: The eRA Commons will not be accessible during the funding lapse. Therefore, no user will be able to access the Commons for viewing electronically submitted applications, accessing Internet Assisted Review, or processing such actions as Commons Registration, FSRs/FFRs, xTrain documents, Closeout documents, and/or FCOI notifications etc. Further there will be no ability to access Commons for query or other purposes. There also will be no access to the Interagency Edison or Electronic Council Books systems.
Prior Approval Requests and Other Communications: NIH extramural employees will have no access to voice mail, e-mail, fax, or postal mail during the funding lapse. All prior approval requests and other communications will not be received until operations resume. It is recommended that you delay sending such communications until after operations resume.
Access to HHS Payment Management System (PMS): For the duration of the funding lapse, the HHS PMS will be open; however, no Federal staff will be available to assist or process any requests. Therefore, drawdowns (payments) on accounts can be processed as long as no Federal staff action is required to finalize the payment. For most NIH grantees, this means drawdowns should be possible. However, if a particular grant is on a reimbursement basis for withdrawing funds or otherwise restricted, then these requests cannot not be processed until after Federal Government operations resume.
ANIMAL WELFARE
The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) business processes are funded by annual appropriations and are not designated as excepted activities under the Antideficiency Act. No activities associated with the OLAW mission will continue for the duration of the funding lapse.
For the duration of the funding lapse, PHS-funded institutions are encouraged to delay sending all Assurance documents, preliminary or final reports of noncompliance or IACUC suspensions as required under the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals IV.F.3, or other correspondence due to OLAW during the funding hiatus period until after operations resume. OLAW will extend deadlines for all reporting activities as necessary to compensate for the period of the lapse in funding and the unavailability of the website and OLAW operational support.
Institutions are reminded that their obligation under their Animal Welfare Assurance to ensure ongoing local support and oversight, and to address and correct all situations that affect animal welfare and compliance with the PHS Policy continues during this period.

Sally Rockey, Ph.D.
NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research

tl;dr
No grant for you! Next!

Oct 2, 2013#63

strawman

43% that want it (ie, are for it) implies that 57% don't want it. That doesn't mean they want it to go away, it just means they aren't supporting, interested in, or perhaps even care about it.

So the headline may be splitting hairs, but it isn't any less correct than some of the lines the democrats are using. "47 million uninsured" for instance.

Oct 2, 2013#64

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
My favorite part of the GoP talking heads on this whole thing has been this:

-We don't know why the Democrats won't listen to the American people! The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare!-

3 seconds later

-Polls show that 43% of Americans are for Obama Care, 49% are against it-

The double talk coming out of the GoP camp is just daily entertainment.

The polls I've seen show 57-60% oppose it.

Oct 2, 2013#65

Reverent-one

Quotemander Prime said:
Fun things I read today:

Boner is trying to turn it around and say Obama is the cause of the shutdown by not folding, disregarding that the majority of Congress is not against the president on this.

Between the House and the Senate there are 252 Democrats, 278 Republicans, and 2 Independents. Assuming all the Democrats and the Independents are in agreement, unless at least 12 Republicans are siding with the Democrats (which may be the case), the majority of congress is against him. Unless you mean majority in a per branch of congress sense, but in that case why would Bohner think the majority is against Obama when they're obviously spilt?

EDIT: And I see @stienman beat me to the punch, never mind.

Oct 2, 2013#66

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
The polls I've seen show 57-60% oppose it.

Which includes all the people who also oppose it because they want single payer. The very CNN poll you mentioned earlier makes this clear. The portrayal of that 60% as some kind of unified voting bloc behind the House Republicans is a complete fabrication.

Oct 2, 2013#67

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Which includes all the people who also oppose it because they want single payer. The very CNN poll you mentioned earlier makes this clear. The portrayal of that 60% as some kind of unified voting bloc behind the House Republicans is a complete fabrication.

And George W. Bush's approval rating also counted against him the people who thought he wasn't conservative enough. Doesn't mean they still didn't like him.

Oct 2, 2013#68

Hailey Knight

And I still can't go to the DC zoo.

Oct 2, 2013#69

Shakey

Called the IRS to get some forms. Nope!

Oct 2, 2013#70

Gilgamesh

I expected those exact responses. Completely missing my point.

I wasn't even discussing the people who are for or against it, I'm talking about the consistent double talk being amusing to me

Oct 2, 2013#71

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
And George W. Bush's approval rating also counted against him the people who thought he wasn't conservative enough. Doesn't mean they still didn't like him.

What does GWB's approval rating have to do with anything?

Oct 2, 2013#72

Espy

Considering that the majority of folks probably couldn't coherently tell you what was in the ACA or even know it's not actually called "Obamacare" I don't think we should put much stock in polls about that either way. If people hated it so bad they probably shouldn't have voted Obama in twice. I still hold to the belief that this is going to destroy the Republicans for at least the next election unless they get rid of the theocratic nutjobs they are allowing to run wild. People like Michelle Bachman shouldn't have this much power in a sane society.

Oct 2, 2013#73

Hailey Knight

Those theocratic nutjobs probably had a stronger hand in getting re-electing Obama than healthcare did.

Oct 2, 2013#74

Gilgamesh

Oh another favorite double talk since the Shutdown:

-Look at Obama, posturing with soldiers to try and create sympathy and further his cause, it's sick the way he's using them as emotional tools!-

3 seconds later

-If Boner and the GoP want to learn how to touch the American people, they should go and speak at the WW2 Memorial where the veterans are pushing their way through the barricades! Bachman herself, is down there helping them across!-

:rofl:

Oct 2, 2013#75

Hailey Knight

Obamacare is in effect now, the date has passed, so ... what's the hold-up for the GOP now? Revenge?

Also, I have a feeling I'll be using this image prominently a year from now:

Oct 2, 2013#76

Krisken

Espy said:
Considering that the majority of folks probably couldn't coherently tell you what was in the ACA or even know it's not actually called "Obamacare" I don't think we should put much stock in polls about that either way.

Say hello to the Onion.

Oct 2, 2013#77

figmentPez

Quotemander Prime said:
Obamacare is in effect now, the date has passed, so ... what's the hold-up for the GOP now? Revenge?

The way some portions of the media spin it, you'd think Obamacare had been in effect since the 1990s.

Oct 2, 2013#78

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
Obamacare is in effect now, the date has passed, so ... what's the hold-up for the GOP now? Revenge?

That's sorta what I've been wondering as well.

Oct 2, 2013#79

strawman

Quotemander Prime said:
Obamacare is in effect now, the date has passed, so ... what's the hold-up for the GOP now? Revenge?

I don't understand this statement. Are you assuming that a law, once passed, or once put into effect, cannot be undone?

Why would it now being in effect suddenly make them change their mind about whether it's a good or bad law?

Oct 2, 2013#80

Krisken

stienman said:
I don't understand this statement. Are you assuming that a law, once passed, or once put into effect, cannot be undone?

Of course not, but to 'undo' something, they'd have to be in session and pass laws, right? They expected the Senate and the White House to blink when they threatened the shut down. They didn't, so now... what? What do they gain by being obstinate and keeping the government from doing what it is supposed to do- serve the people?

Oct 2, 2013#81

Necronic

At lunch today I was talking with one of the more hardcore republicans I know (and this is at an oil company). He was thoroughly disgusted with the republican party.

If they DO succeed in overturning Obamacare by torpedoing the giovernment it's going to be the last thing they will do for a while. Their priorities are insane. They honestly think that Obamacare is basically the Russians on the beach-head. Nothing else matters. The real question is if they are insane enough to play with the debt ceiling as a bargaining tactic. They do that and they are donezo.

One argument he did make that actually made a bit of sense to me is that this whole thing is about destroying the Tea Party. If the "mainstream" republicans hadn't followed along with this they would be in for a Primary challenge, but if they DO go along with it they can blame the Tea Party for the fallout. Its a very dangerous game.

Anyways, I would love to be able to vote republican one day. I doubt I will though, party is run and supported by idiots. There's a reason you don't try to overturn legislation before the ink has dried.

Edit: The ONE reason I have always considered voting republican is economic reasons. Its one thing I think they get right, at least more right than the left. And this party, the one that I think of as "good with money" is considering playing chicken with the debt ceiling. You are going to see a lot of people like me abandon the republican party after our 401ks take a hit this fall.

Oct 2, 2013#82

Charlie Don't Surf

no no it's a slimdown lol

Oct 2, 2013#83

Necronic

Also, as a Texan, I would just like to apologize for the latest round of jackasses we have sent to congress.

Oct 2, 2013#84

Krisken

Necronic said:
Also, as a Texan, I would just like to apologize for the latest round of jackasses we have sent to congress.

As a Wisconsinite, we feel horrible for thrusting Ryan in the spot light.

Oct 2, 2013#85

strawman

Krisken said:
Of course not, but to 'undo' something, they'd have to be in session and pass laws, right?

They are in session, and they are passing laws.

Krisken said:
They expected the Senate and the White House to blink when they threatened the shut down. They didn't, so now... what?

They hold the line until they do, or until they decide that the consequences of holding the line are worse than the consequences of allowing the healthcare law to continue.

Krisken said:
What do they gain by being obstinate and keeping the government from doing what it is supposed to do- serve the people?

They are serving their constituents by forcing the issue. The law was passed in a rush without public support in a completely partisan manner.

It's not supported by even half the country. Not by half of congress.

The ONLY hope the democrats have of keeping it is if they don't let it fall until it comes into enough effect that reversing it actively hurts people.

Right now getting rid of it hurts fewer people, but this is one of the last major milestones where a reversal isn't as painful.

So for those opposed to socialized healthcare, or simply opposed to this particular implementation of it, this is the best course of action.

Trying to get rid of it once people are covered under it will be nearly impossible.

So yes - both parties are still playing chicken, a game of political brinksmanship. One side because they believe in social healthcare, and they were willing to shut down the government to avoid confronting the fact that it's unpopular, and that the people's representatives want to reconfigure it. The other side because they believe it shouldn't be implemented, and they are willing to shut down the government to force the other side to confront the fact that the bill is unpopular, and that their constituents don't want it.

Oct 2, 2013#86

PatrThom

Necronic said:
The ONE reason I have always considered voting republican is economic reasons. Its one thing I think they get right, at least more right than the left. And this party, the one that I think of as "good with money" is considering playing chicken with the debt ceiling. You are going to see a lot of people like me abandon the republican party after our 401ks take a hit this fall.

I do feel like the parties are acting like a couple of territorial kaiju slugging it out to see who gets control of the land, oblivious to the destruction and loss of life they are causing around them.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2013#87

SpecialKO

stienman said:
One side because they believe in social healthcare, and they were willing to shut down the government to avoid confronting the fact that it's unpopular

As pointed out above, this is unlikely to be true. The polls that are bothering to drill down into this question are showing a significant portion of those who are against the ACA want more social healthcare, they just don't think the ACA goes far enough.

While I agree with Espy and Necronic about how little the polls can really be trusted on an issue like this, as long as people keep saying that "Americans don't want socialized medicine" as if that's some damning counter-point, it's worth pointing out.

Oct 2, 2013#88

strawman

SpecialKO said:
As pointed out above, this is unlikely to be true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

It doesn't matter why they're against it. If they think it should be trashed because it doesn't go far enough, if they think it should be trashed because it goes too far, if they think it should be trashed because it's the wrong kind of social healthcare, if they think it should be trashed because they don't want social healthcare.

"Oppose/against" means exactly that - they oppose it. They are against it.

They may not side with the republicans nor their plan or method, but in every poll Americans are clearly not in support of this law as it stands.

You can break it down all you want. This is the wrong law in the minds of over half the US population.

Oct 2, 2013#89

SpecialKO

stienman said:
You can break it down all you want. This is the wrong law in the minds of over half the US population.

And using that fact as you just did to mischaracterize their views on social healthcare is still wrong.

Oct 2, 2013#90

strawman

I'm not saying a thing about social healthcare. I'm talking about this bill, and this bill alone.

They don't want it.

Period.

Yes, this bill is part of a social healthcare system, but I never said, "over half of Americans don't want social healthcare." I've only ever said that they don't want this bill.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Oct 2, 2013#91

PatrThom

I think the hardest part to grasp is that all those people don't want this bill. But they're not proposing an alternative. They're just saying, "No!" They're not calling out the bad parts, offering fixes, saying what they would do, showing why their version would be better, etc. "I don't like this one," is a measure of opinion, but without some form of useful feedback, it's like trying to give a kid spoon after spoon of pureed mush hoping you'll stumble on something he likes before he starves.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2013#92

Necronic

stienman said:
I'm not saying a thing about social healthcare. I'm talking about this bill, and this bill alone.

They don't want it.

Period.

Yes, this bill is part of a social healthcare system, but I never said, "over half of Americans don't want social healthcare." I've only ever said that they don't want this bill.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

It's hard to understand because most people love many specific aspects of it. Shit, ROMNEY liked it, but quibbled over states rights.

Do you disagree with pre-existing conditions elimination?

Rescission regulations?

Do you want to stop the national Healthcare Database?

Even people that prefer a single payer system (a large part of your %) would prefer ACA to nothing. Which is what the right is offering. It's all they ever offer. I don't know why we elect people when we could just buy one of those bird things that pushes the button over and over.

Oct 2, 2013#93

SpecialKO

stienman said:
Yes, this bill is part of a social healthcare system, but I never said, "over half of Americans don't want social healthcare." I've only ever said that they don't want this bill.

IMHO, you really did not make it sound like that before, but I'm willing to toss this one to "internet mis-translation" since you've made yourself clear this time.

My bad.[DOUBLEPOST=1380768292,1380768031][/DOUBLEPOST]I think Necro hits it on the head here, and it also exemplifies what's wrong with the polling questions (or at least how the results are being represented).

There's very little indication in the pubic reports of the different polls that ask the "no's" why they're "no's" or what they would prefer in a "pick one" grid.

"I oppose the ACA in its current form because I think we can make it better and closer to single-payer and I would like Congress to make those adjustments first before it gets implemented"

and

"I oppose the ACA because it's socialized healthcare and socialized healthcare never actually works and will just result in worse care for everyone"

are pretty much diametrically opposed views, both in terms of their long-term goals and their actual intentions vis-a-vis the ACA.

Oct 2, 2013#94

Necronic

Here's a better poll

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

So basically it's party lines with little to no change.

Oct 2, 2013#95

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Here's a better poll

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

So basically it's party lines with little to no change.

Hrm, according to that, under the Party ID, the independents noticably disfavor it.

Oct 2, 2013#96

SpecialKO

That's kind of better, but if they did not ask follow-up questions to dive into answers, it's still only of limited value in informing the public of what "the public" thinks.

If the N-sizes end up too small if you try and break the reasons down, then they should increase the size of the total sample.

Oct 2, 2013#97

Krisken

stienman said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

It doesn't matter why they're against it. If they think it should be trashed because it doesn't go far enough, if they think it should be trashed because it goes too far, if they think it should be trashed because it's the wrong kind of social healthcare, if they think it should be trashed because they don't want social healthcare.

"Oppose/against" means exactly that - they oppose it. They are against it.

They may not side with the republicans nor their plan or method, but in every poll Americans are clearly not in support of this law as it stands.

You can break it down all you want. This is the wrong law in the minds of over half the US population.

The poll means nothing. All it says is people don't like something called Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act. We've established that people have no idea what is in it or what it does. Now, what happens when you break down the bill into everything which people are going to get from it? Oh, that's right, they suddenly love it. Just don't call it Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

I will say this, the Republicans and their masters did a great job of demonizing it.

Oct 2, 2013#98

Necronic

Yeah I guess it's better just in the numbers, the question is the same. But that's sort of the point. I mean here's a poll that says that only 37% of Americans oppose the ACA:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/

I could get a poll to say anything.

Oct 2, 2013#99

SpecialKO

Someone needs to do a poll using conjoint analysis based on individual features of the ACA.

Oct 2, 2013#100

strawman

Necronic said:
Even people that prefer a single payer system (a large part of your %) would prefer ACA to nothing.

A large part of those that oppose the ACA don't actually oppose it? The poll questions are pretty clear and the results are pretty clear. The people who want more but don't oppose this bill are part of the less than fifty percent that don't oppose it.

The list of people who want something different is probably significantly greater than fifty percent. It could be that 90% of Americans want something changed about the bill. But only fewer than fifty percent don't oppose the bill.

But it seems very important to you to believe that the bill has popular support, and if interpreting the multitude of poll results that way is important to you, then who am I to deny you that comfort.

Oct 2, 2013#101

Krisken

Funny, I was going to say that about your position since you've been harping on it for a whole page.

Oct 2, 2013#102

Terrik

I thought this was an interesting piece

Chinese netizens react to US government shutdown and conclude the superiority of the US system

October 1, 2013, China’s National Day and also the day when the US federal government began systematically shutting down operations for the first time in nearly two decades. How the Chinese people, more specifically, Chinese social media users, react to the coincidence?
Many people’s first reaction is making jokes about the act being a way for the US government to honor the 64th birthday of the Chinese government. For example, netizen宇文馳 asked jokingly: “Do American people celebrate China National Day, too?” Another netizen 土豆怒了 pointed out: “What shutdown? It’s the US adopting our week-long National Day Holiday.”

These jokes, however, are more than carelss sarcasm. For a long time after 1949 when the current “new” China was founded, the US has been described as a primary ideology rival, if not enemy, in official rhetoric. Even today, it’s still not uncommon to see official media using the US as the comparison to emphasize why the political, economic and social systems in China work better and more efficiently.

The image of the US being the evil imperialist and capitalist country whereas China being the superior socialist country has gradually flipped in recent years as more and more Chinese people, especially the urban young, start to view the US as a role model worth looking up to. The US middle class lifestyle is what many of China’s nouveau riche aspire to.
Nevertheless, Chinese netizens didn’t hesitate a second to use the stereotypes to make fun of the current events.

In response to the shutdown news, one netizen 叶落如初 commented: “There is such a severe lack of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ at this evil capitalist county.” Another netizen 樱桃肉丸子的冬天 commented: “The US government shuts down on China’s National Day, I feel like my world view has been put upside down. To beat the US – what we learned on Maoist Theory classes is no longer a day dream.”

Jokes aside, most people expressed disbelief. A government shutdown will never happen in China, at least not under CCP rule. Like in many other cases, Chinese netizens couldn’t help but ponder on what if the same thing happens in China. And the conclusion is that the US has a much better-functioning government. Why? Because the country runs normally even when government operations are shut down.

One netizen 怒一代 commented: “The system in the US is indeed superior. Their government can be shut down without causing any chaos in the society.”

Compare to a hypothetical similar scenario in China, the impact of a US federal government shutdown on the lives of its ordinary citizens can be said to be minimum. After all, as one netizen 段郎说事 commented: “The job of the US federal government is to serve, not to dictate.”

If the Chinese government shuts down, as one netizen 喵煮席爱大金链子 imaged, “the Chinese people won’t survive long.” Another netizen 西水东渐 chimed in: “The US government isn’t an omnipotent government. A shutdown won’t cause social unrest and instability. The Chinese government is an omnipotent government. A one-day shutdown would lead to a paralyzed society.”

“The US federal government shuts down. It’s a price of democracy check and balance. It will bring inconvenience to a lot of people, but I believe, between an inefficient government and a government without check and balance, most Americans will choose the former. This is the 18th times when the US federal government was shut down. No major social chaos occurred during the precious 17 times. A mature society can afford to have its government shut down.” Netizen 王冉 commented.

Source

Oct 2, 2013#103

strawman

Yes, it's sad how much the polls disagree with my statements, and how much I have to twist them to make them seem to match my statements.

I should be ashamed of myself.

Oct 2, 2013#104

Necronic

Honestly I don't think the majority of people support the entire bill. But I think enough of them support enough of it, especially when they have the pieces explained.

I'll always stand by my early view that the biggest failure of the ACA was messaging. It was such a complex piece of legislation, possibly the most complex legislation package since the civil rights bill or medicaire/Medicaid.

This lack of information makes polling pretty worthless of you're sincere. If you just want to misuse polls it's a gold mine.

And I would love to hear more republicans complain abou price while they risk our credit rating with brinksmanship. Killing the ACA by risking our credit rating is like using a nuke to stop LA gang violence. The costs of the ACA pale in comparison to that.

Oct 2, 2013#105

Hailey Knight

Got a new one, it shows 100% of those polled were against Obamacare.

I asked my rats to go left if they were in favor and right if they were against, and then shook the Cheerio bag in my right hand. They both voted against.

Necronic said:
I could get a poll to say anything.

He's right.

Oct 2, 2013#106

SpecialKO

Terrik said:
I thought this was an interesting piece

Chinese netizens react to US government shutdown and conclude the superiority of the US system

October 1, 2013, China’s National Day and also the day when the US federal government began systematically shutting down operations for the first time in nearly two decades. How the Chinese people, more specifically, Chinese social media users, react to the coincidence?
Many people’s first reaction is making jokes about the act being a way for the US government to honor the 64th birthday of the Chinese government. For example, netizen宇文馳 asked jokingly: “Do American people celebrate China National Day, too?” Another netizen 土豆怒了 pointed out: “What shutdown? It’s the US adopting our week-long National Day Holiday.”

These jokes, however, are more than carelss sarcasm. For a long time after 1949 when the current “new” China was founded, the US has been described as a primary ideology rival, if not enemy, in official rhetoric. Even today, it’s still not uncommon to see official media using the US as the comparison to emphasize why the political, economic and social systems in China work better and more efficiently.

The image of the US being the evil imperialist and capitalist country whereas China being the superior socialist country has gradually flipped in recent years as more and more Chinese people, especially the urban young, start to view the US as a role model worth looking up to. The US middle class lifestyle is what many of China’s nouveau riche aspire to.
Nevertheless, Chinese netizens didn’t hesitate a second to use the stereotypes to make fun of the current events.

In response to the shutdown news, one netizen 叶落如初 commented: “There is such a severe lack of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ at this evil capitalist county.” Another netizen 樱桃肉丸子的冬天 commented: “The US government shuts down on China’s National Day, I feel like my world view has been put upside down. To beat the US – what we learned on Maoist Theory classes is no longer a day dream.”

Jokes aside, most people expressed disbelief. A government shutdown will never happen in China, at least not under CCP rule. Like in many other cases, Chinese netizens couldn’t help but ponder on what if the same thing happens in China. And the conclusion is that the US has a much better-functioning government. Why? Because the country runs normally even when government operations are shut down.

One netizen 怒一代 commented: “The system in the US is indeed superior. Their government can be shut down without causing any chaos in the society.”

Compare to a hypothetical similar scenario in China, the impact of a US federal government shutdown on the lives of its ordinary citizens can be said to be minimum. After all, as one netizen 段郎说事 commented: “The job of the US federal government is to serve, not to dictate.”

If the Chinese government shuts down, as one netizen 喵煮席爱大金链子 imaged, “the Chinese people won’t survive long.” Another netizen 西水东渐 chimed in: “The US government isn’t an omnipotent government. A shutdown won’t cause social unrest and instability. The Chinese government is an omnipotent government. A one-day shutdown would lead to a paralyzed society.”

“The US federal government shuts down. It’s a price of democracy check and balance. It will bring inconvenience to a lot of people, but I believe, between an inefficient government and a government without check and balance, most Americans will choose the former. This is the 18th times when the US federal government was shut down. No major social chaos occurred during the precious 17 times. A mature society can afford to have its government shut down.” Netizen 王冉 commented.

Source

Huh...that really is super interesting. I'm going to have to process that one.

Oct 2, 2013#107

Krisken

Ok, lets talk about polls then, since you put so much stock in them. Here's the approval rating of congress-

10% approval rating, a 10 point dip since last month.

Oct 2, 2013#108

Necronic

I can't take the right seriously as long as they fuck with the credit rating. The last downgrade, which was caused by the possibility of a default hit the stock market like a bomb. No big deal it's only money right? 5% is only 1 year of my life who cares?

The only thing that protected us was the absolute shit hole that socialist monetary systems are right now. But we can't count on that for long. And if we default, fuck me, we're done. It would make the great recession look like a picnic.

How can anyone support leadership that thinks that the ACA is more dangerous than another credit downgrade? When you have the head of Goldam Sachs pleading with the republicans to not torch the economy you know the worm has turned.

As for the ACa, what we need now is some stability. That is far more important than the ACA. Even to insurance companies. The amount of money they has put into restructure could be tossed out in a heartbeat, which would be fine if it wasn't up for another restructure as soon as democrats get back in office.

Ideals are fine and dandy until they hit the realities of operating a business. This has been one of the most unfriendly environments for business in ages because as soon as one side does something the otherwise drops everything they are doing and tries to revert it.

The only people who come out on top there are lawyers. No surprise that's who we have in congress.[DOUBLEPOST=1380772034,1380771651][/DOUBLEPOST]Only 33% support repealing it

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...rt-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/

Same poll says only 26% support it in its current form. So 20% more support repealing it.

Use whichever one you want

Oct 2, 2013#109

strawman

If the ACA is so unimportant, why aren't the democrats scrambling over themselves to drop it?

Both sides appear to believe its important enough to stop the government for. Either side could drop it if they truly felt it wasn't worth stopping/upholding.

You realize this is a two way street, right? It's fun to vilify one side or the other, I guess, but don't trivialize it.

Oct 2, 2013#110

SpecialKO

Yeah, damn those democrats for not bowing to the GOP threatening to shutdown the government and crash our credit rating over a law they don't like that survived almost 4 years of no one trying to improve it, a presidential election, and a supreme court decision.

It's the dems fault for not doing that first with every law they don't like!

Oct 2, 2013#111

redthirtyone

Honestly it's like the Republicans have forgotten their own tactics from their own playbook.

Draw up a bill for something SO important, that voting against it would be political suicide. Let's say... Gun control. Draw up a bill that caters to every demand that gun control advocates have been whining about for the last year. Most likely this will get thrown out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional anyways, but worry about that later.

Then you tack on your riders. Repeal Obamacare. Deal with the debt cieling etc etc. That way, when the bill gets hammered in the Senate, you can scream bloody murder about how the Democrats voted down a perfectly good bill regarding gun control. Worked for the UIGEA a few years back, why not now.

And honestly, the White House is being super-douchey about how they shut down things. The passive-aggresive tweets yesterday from fun accounts like the Mars Rover & such were just petty. I also like how the whole WWII memorial incident is now being portrayed as compassionate, that they allowed the vets to view the memorial out of the goodness of their hearts because they had all traveled so far to visit. Never mind the angry mob that was forming, I do believe they were going to see the memorial whether the government shutdown allowed it or not.

Also, I can't believe that members of Congress drawing a paycheck during shutdown is even an option. GOP representative are missing a golden opportunity for some goodwill points by not standing out in front of the Capitol building and all announcing that they are not getting paid during the shutdown. It's not like they can't afford it. Senate leader Reid made an ass of himself this morning equating the hardship of his 1100 constituents at Nellis AFB to the hardship of cancer patients who won't be able to start treatment due to the shutdown, meanwhile collecting his gubmint check.

Oct 2, 2013#112

Hailey Knight

SpecialKO said:
Yeah, damn those democrats for not bowing to the GOP threatening to shutdown the government and crash our credit rating over a law they don't like that survived almost 4 years of no one trying to improve it, a presidential election, and a supreme court decision.

It's the dems fault for not doing that first with every law they don't like!

No, no, it's the democrats' fault; they threatened to shut down the government unless the GOP backed down from their threat to shut down the government over that law.

I am so gonna ace that practice journalism portion of my interview at Fox News.

Oct 3, 2013#113

Shakey

On the whole opposing the health care law, people can oppose Obama by thinking he's not liberal enough but not support getting rid of him and putting a conservative in his place. So, yes, people can oppose the health care law but not want to see it repealed, since it's better than nothing.

The problem I have with Republicans opposing this law so fiercely is that for many it's just for show. It's to maintain support among the vocal minority. Hell, this is very similar to the health care plan republicans proposed themselves, which is why it was used. They thought they could gain support across the isle by using something they have supported before. But it was Obama, so it had to be opposed.

So yes, this all seems childish. Too many times Republicans have said they will oppose everything Obama tried to do, no matter what it was. It's tiring, and I hope to God the Democrats don't give on this. The republicans are being vilified for a reason. They need to quit trying to break the other kids toys just because they didn't get to play with it this time.

Oct 3, 2013#114

GasBandit

Shakey said:
On the whole opposing the health care law, people can oppose Obama by thinking he's not liberal enough but not support getting rid of him and putting a conservative in his place. So, yes, people can oppose the health care law but not want to see it repealed, since it's better than nothing.

The problem I have with Republicans opposing this law so fiercely is that for many it's just for show. It's to maintain support among the vocal minority. Hell, this is very similar to the health care plan republicans proposed themselves, which is why it was used. They thought they could gain support across the isle by using something they have supported before. But it was Obama, so it had to be opposed.

So yes, this all seems childish. Too many times Republicans have said they will oppose everything Obama tried to do, no matter what it was. It's tiring, and I hope to God the Democrats don't give on this. The republicans are being vilified for a reason. They need to quit trying to break the other kids toys just because they didn't get to play with it this time.

Now you know how non-democrats felt all during the GW Bush years of the Iraq war.

But you're right in that a lot of the republicans are only resisting for show, and in their heart of hearts they don't really have ideological issues with Obamacare. Ted Cruz even made that very claim a week or so ago. There are a great many republicans who are not at all opposed to engorging the behemoth of the federal government, because they hope to steer it one day when the pendulum swings back. It's only their fear of the tea party uprising that keeps them pretending to small government posturing.

Oct 3, 2013#115

Shakey

GasBandit said:
Now you know how non-democrats felt all during the GW Bush years of the Iraq war.

Democrats fold easier than origami paper though. There isn't much to compare to.

But you're right in that a lot of the republicans are only resisting for show, and in their heart of hearts they don't really have ideological issues with Obamacare.

And that's what really bothers me. It might be different if they truly believed it was the wrong path for this country, but they don't. They're after votes. And that is coming at the expense of peoples lives. People aren't getting a paycheck to feed their families or pay their bills. People are being turned away from national parks and monuments after they have already spent their time and money to get there for what is the only vacation many will get this year, or even longer. All for some votes. Nothing more.
At least the democrats are standing by their belief that everyone should have health care.

Oct 3, 2013#116

TommiR

stienman said:
If the ACA is so unimportant, why aren't the democrats scrambling over themselves to drop it?

Both sides appear to believe its important enough to stop the government for. Either side could drop it if they truly felt it wasn't worth stopping/upholding.

You realize this is a two way street, right? It's fun to vilify one side or the other, I guess, but don't trivialize it.

If the Democrats caved in on this one, the wouldn't there be a risk that this becomes standard operating procedure? If the Republicans succeed with gambling the operation of government and the faith and credit in the United States for partisan advantage, then won't people do the same in the future and leverage the national interest for party politics, regardless of administration? Had Clinton folded under similar circumstances, then the last 20 years might have been bumpier a ride.

Dubyamn said:
It's America we put a man on the goddamn moon and were able to land multiple probes on Mars. I think we can come up with a way to create a good mass transit system if we put our minds to it.

It won't be cheap probably won't be a huge money maker but a good transit system is the greatest thing a city can have going for it.

There certainly is nothing that makes it impossible to do so. The good thing about those sort of problems is that they tend to get fixed if you just throw enough money at them. They'll just have to decide if the benefits are worth the costs.

Oct 3, 2013#117

GasBandit

Shakey said:
Democrats fold easier than origami paper though. There isn't much to compare to.

I'm fairly certain republicans will buckle on this one. I think you give them too much credit.

And that's what really bothers me. It might be different if they truly believed it was the wrong path for this country, but they don't. They're after votes. And that is coming at the expense of peoples lives. People aren't getting a paycheck to feed their families or pay their bills. People are being turned away from national parks and monuments after they have already spent their time and money to get there for what is the only vacation many will get this year, or even longer. All for some votes. Nothing more.
At least the democrats are standing by their belief that everyone should have health care.

Oh, you misunderstand me - these republicans don't think obamacare is good for the country, they think it's good for the federal government. And really, the democrats are the same. This isn't about medical care. The 47 million figure was a farce, the crisis is largely manufactured (yes some people get really sick and can't afford it, but people are not dying in the streets left and right as some would have you believe) and the ACA barely does anything to address any of the raised issues in question while simultaneously spending a trillion more dollars (so far) and tightening government regulatory grip over a sixth of the (formerly) private economy. It's not about medical care, for these politicians. It's about control. Because once they hold your medical care in their hands, you cannot stray from the flock.

Oct 3, 2013#118

AshburnerX

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the only reason the Dems haven't buckled on this one is because they don't want it to become a standard play for ether side... because it would if it works.

Also, there is no way that any of them would be doing this if this was an election year. I'd LOVE to see the senators with balls enough to try that.

Oct 3, 2013#119

strawman

I don't buy into the idea that most of the republicans are only toeing the line for votes. But that, I suppose, is a topic for the obamacare thread.

Oct 3, 2013#120

Covar

Politicians in Washington caring about what's good for the people and country. That's rich. :rofl:

Oct 3, 2013#121

Espy

Honestly I will give it to the Tea Party folks, even if I think they are nuts, they are willing to (at least they seem willing) destroy everything to get their way. Thats conviction. Which is, you know, something I guess.

I guess part of me respects that while the other part goes, you know, this could have some really serious consequences that I don't think the majority of us citizens are prepared to handle (except Gas, any room in your shelter buddy?).

I am very bothered by the clips of rich white folks with nice teeth (RWFWNT) blabbing about how the shutdown is "no big deal" and "it's not effecting me so who cares!". Then I see articles like this: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/shutdown-hits-tribes-some-services-continue

Oct 3, 2013#122

figmentPez

There's a petition, probably multiple petitions, trying to get suspended pay for congress during the government shutdown. Aside form the fact that congress is barred from altering the pay for the current session, it doesn't seem like people are thinking this through. Cutting off the pay to congressmen isn't going to effect them evenly across the board. Those with enough investments and savings, or second sources of income, are going to be far less bothered by having their wages stopped, than those who rely on their paycheck. So, cutting their pay seems like a good way to really upset the balance of the system, unless someone has researched the financials of all the current congressman and weighed who is likely to cave because of the pressure.

Oct 3, 2013#123

strawman

I had similar thoughts p[reviously, saying that they shouldn't get paid as well, but as I thought about it I figured the reality is that only rich wealthy congresspeople will be able to stomach it for a few days or weeks, the rest will have to go home. Do we really want the richest congresspeople making our country's financial decisions?

Oct 3, 2013#124

SpecialKO

I would actually be pretty down for a "maximum net worth/HHI" limit for politicians in general. I'm aware this would boot out 90% of people currently in congress and the President, too, but it's not like rich folks lack other ways to influence politics.

Oct 3, 2013#125

GasBandit

Espy said:
Honestly I will give it to the Tea Party folks, even if I think they are nuts, they are willing to (at least they seem willing) destroy everything to get their way. Thats conviction. Which is, you know, something I guess.

From their perspective, they're saving the country from the destruction obamacare will wreak upon it, and the government isn't critical to day-to-day life anyway. I don't think even they expect the shutdown to go long enough to imperil the debt limit raise, though I'm sure there are some who don't care because they oppose raising the debt limit, too.

I guess part of me respects that while the other part goes, you know, this could have some really serious consequences that I don't think the majority of us citizens are prepared to handle (except Gas, any room in your shelter buddy?).

Mmmmmmaybe. We'll be repopulating the species, remember, so, know any chicks you can bring? And in the name of genetic diversity we need as many as varied as we can get...

Oct 3, 2013#126

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Mmmmmmaybe. We'll be repopulating the species, remember, so, know any chicks you can bring? And in the name of genetic diversity we need as many as varied as we can get...

What you mean, we? You're up against the wall, [expletive deleted]. :troll:

Oct 3, 2013#127

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
What you mean, we? You're up against the wall, [expletive deleted].

I'm the one with the shelter, guns, rations, and lifetime supply of toilet paper. You can starve in the mountains, hippy!

Oct 3, 2013#128

PatrThom

SpecialKO said:
I would actually be pretty down for a "maximum net worth/HHI" limit for politicians in general. I'm aware this would boot out 90% of people currently in congress and the President, too, but it's not like rich folks lack other ways to influence politics.

Nah, that won't work. A corporation which doesn't like a congressman would be able to remove him by just giving him an outsize gift, thereby pushing him over the limit.

--Patrick

Oct 3, 2013#129

SpecialKO

PatrThom said:
Nah, that won't work. A corporation which doesn't like a congressman would be able to remove him by just giving him an outsize gift, thereby pushing him over the limit.

--Patrick

Supposedly, that's illegal already. What congresscritters should do in that situation is make an immediate, documented, donation in that corporations name to a cause that they hate.

Oct 3, 2013#130

Eriol

SpecialKO said:
Supposedly, that's illegal already. What congresscritters should do in that situation is make an immediate, documented, donation in that corporations name to a cause that they hate.

This is highly amusing.

Oct 3, 2013#131

jwhouk

Krisken: did you see that Duffy got accosted as he was walking out of his office and heading over to the Capitol?

Oct 3, 2013#132

GasBandit

Shots fired at the Capitol Building, story developing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/liveblog-live/liveblog/shots-fired-at-capitol/[DOUBLEPOST=1380826557,1380826482][/DOUBLEPOST]

Oct 3, 2013#133

strawman

Specifically the senate buildings. Two shots. Some reports that the shooter has been caught. Some reports of an officer injured. Building was locked down at the time (just after 2:30pm) but is now not locked down. Suspect is female.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvptve/cvpstream1.html

Oct 3, 2013#134

GasBandit

Shelter in place lifted, female suspect killed.

Oct 3, 2013#135

strawman

We kind of take shooting at our government Pretty Seriously.

Shutting it down, however, isn't a problem.

Oct 3, 2013#136

GasBandit

ABC affiliate just said the female suspect had attemped to force her vehicle past a white house checkpoint, failed, was chased by police to the senate building where she was shot. Three officers have been wounded.

Oct 3, 2013#137

Krisken

jwhouk said:
Krisken: did you see that Duffy got accosted as he was walking out of his office and heading over to the Capitol?

Woah, no, I didn't! Got a link to that?

Edit: Nevermind, found one, thanks

Oct 3, 2013#138

PatrThom

Now the "Sequester" will begin in earnest.

--Patrick

Oct 3, 2013#139

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
ABC affiliate just said the female suspect had attemped to force her vehicle past a white house checkpoint, failed, was chased by police to the senate building where she was shot. Three officers have been wounded.

Let's see what NBC News has to say:

The incident appeared to be isolated and was not related to terrorism

Oh. Well, carry on, then. Nothing to see here.

--Patrick

Oct 4, 2013#140

strawman

Obama finds that the government is still closed:

Oct 4, 2013#141

GasBandit

stienman said:
Obama finds that the government is still closed:

That first struck me more as someone making sure he remembered to lock all the doors before he left the house.

Oct 4, 2013#142

strawman

The person who drove into the barricades and was subsequently killed yesterday was unarmed (except for the car) and she had her 1 year old daughter in the backseat. She apparently was suffering from postpartum depression over this last year, but there is no other knowledge about why she tried to enter the white house grounds.

The child is unharmed.

They started a probe to find out why the police responded by shooting her since she did not ever get past the barricades, and other than reckless driving did not pose an immediate danger to anyone.

Oct 4, 2013#143

GasBandit

stienman said:
The person who drove into the barricades and was subsequently killed yesterday was unarmed (except for the car) and she had her 1 year old daughter in the backseat. She apparently was suffering from postpartum depression over this last year, but there is no other knowledge about why she tried to enter the white house grounds.

The child is unharmed.

They started a probe to find out why the police responded by shooting her since she did not ever get past the barricades, and other than reckless driving did not pose an immediate danger to anyone.

We'll see what the investigation turns up, but I have a hard time faulting law enforcement/secret service for opening fire on a black sedan that tries to ram its way through a barricade at the white house and runs over a cop, then speeds toward the capitol.

But it does sound like a seriously leveled-up version of suicide-by-cop.

Oct 4, 2013#144

PatrThom

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, however, nobody knew how many were involved nor the situation as a whole. I see a lot of administrative leave being handed out.

--Patrick

Oct 4, 2013#145

jwhouk

Unpaid, of course.

Oct 4, 2013#146

Tress

When you hit a pedestrian with a car on purpose , they usually categorize it as assault with a deadly weapon. The police just responded in kind.

Oct 4, 2013#147

sixpackshaker

That behavior of hers is not explained away by saying she's depressed.

Oct 4, 2013#148

Necronic

Also the cops had just watched Olympus Has Fallen.

Oct 4, 2013#149

Hailey Knight

If I'd seen a car like that run someone over and try to ram, my first thought would be "full of explosives".

Oct 4, 2013#150

Necronic

Pretty much, it's probably why they took her out

Oct 5, 2013#151

GasBandit

Something struck me as odd about the whole "WW2 Memorial closed to veterans" story. It's an open air area. If funding to it is shut down, who's putting up barricades and turning away the veterans? Turns out I guess "shut down" doesn't mean they send the workers home, they just instruct them to make life miserable as possible for anyone who wants to enter the memorial.

Park Service Ranger: "We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting."

It's like I've said all along.. in any situation, service to the public is not the goal of government. Increased government is the goal of government. If you dare try to weaken (or shut down) the government, government makes damn sure you regret it as much as possible.

Oct 5, 2013#152

SpecialKO

Um, I'm not taking anything the Washington Times claims is fact as fact.

Also, describing the Parks Services as a "vast army" also doesn't get a lot of credibility from me.

Oct 5, 2013#153

Covar

See also the various websites "shutting down"

Oct 5, 2013#154

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Something struck me as odd about the whole "WW2 Memorial closed to veterans" story. It's an open air area. If funding to it is shut down, who's putting up barricades and turning away the veterans? Turns out I guess "shut down" doesn't mean they send the workers home, they just instruct them to make life miserable as possible for anyone who wants to enter the memorial.

Park Service Ranger: "We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting."

It's like I've said all along.. in any situation, service to the public is not the goal of government. Increased government is the goal of government. If you dare try to weaken (or shut down) the government, government makes damn sure you regret it as much as possible.

When I went to DC last year, I went through the WW II memorial on my way through the mall. It was ~8:30 on a weekday morning, and there were only four other tourists around. That's it. They're spending more time and money to block it off than they were leaving it open.

Oct 5, 2013#155

Hailey Knight

Many of the monuments pre-shutdown were open area, low security. I'd been to them a few times. Seeing how there was no entry fee and no doors, it's asinine to be enforcing a stoppage to people's entry.

GasBandit said:
It's like I've said all along.. in any situation, service to the public is not the goal of government. Increased government is the goal of government. If you dare try to weaken (or shut down) the government, government makes damn sure you regret it as much as possible.

Except we're not shutting it down. The government is shutting the government down, and the government's not being punished for it; we are.

Oct 5, 2013#156

GasBandit

Fear not, citizen, the POST OFFICE is still open!

Oct 5, 2013#157

PatrThom

Neither curbs, nor hydrangea, nor sprinkler systems shall stay this courier from her appointed rounds.

--Patrick

Oct 5, 2013#158

GasBandit

And the press is still there, making sure we have up to date information on the latest developments of this increasingly stressful event.

Oct 5, 2013#159

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
And the press is still there, making sure we have up to date information on the latest developments of this increasingly stressful event.

Hey, the Nasdaq likes it. It goes up 0.01!

--Patrick

Oct 5, 2013#160

ThatNickGuy

Guys. Guys! Breaking news on the TRUTH behind Obama and the government shutdown!

Oct 5, 2013#161

Necronic

There's something ironic about someone making fun of the president for liking Pokemon, when writing the jokes takes a deep understanding of Pokemon.

Oct 5, 2013#162

Hailey Knight

Necronic said:
There's something ironic about someone making fun of the president for liking Pokemon, when writing the jokes takes a deep understanding of Pokemon.

He was made fun of for liking a certain Pokemon that no one should like.

I honestly don't think I've ever come across a real person using that Pokemon in the games. Only NPCs.

Oct 5, 2013#163

GasBandit

Exactly. I had no idea there was a Pokemon called Mr. Mime, nor that he was awful. I got the joke, but I wasn't in on it.

Oct 5, 2013#164

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Exactly. I had no idea there was a Pokemon called Mr. Mime, nor that he was awful. I got the joke, but I wasn't in on it.

Exactly.

--Patrick

Oct 6, 2013#165

Hailey Knight

~~Exactly.~~ Miiiister Miiiiiiime!

Oct 6, 2013#166

Necronic

God damnit Japan.

God damnit.

Oct 6, 2013#167

PatrThom

Quotemander Prime said:
~~Exactly.~~ Miiiister Miiiiiiime!

If ever a Pokemon deserved the "make me creepy for Hallowe'en" treatment, it's this guy.

--Patrick

Oct 6, 2013#168

strawman

Interesting point about all the blaming:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thom...o-shut-down-the-government-n1716292/page/full

Oct 6, 2013#169

Krisken

Sorry, I stopped reading fairly quickly, mostly because I didn't feel like it would be a helpful article after seeing this-

That there is some head slapping bias right there.

Oct 6, 2013#170

GasBandit

stienman said:
Interesting point about all the blaming:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thom...o-shut-down-the-government-n1716292/page/full

Factual, well reasoned, plainly stated. Prepare for the straw man arguments against townhall.com.

Aaand I was too late posting this.. It already started.

Oct 6, 2013#171

Shakey

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want.

Kind of funny they bring that up.

Oct 6, 2013#172

strawman

Well Kristen, I'm sorry too.

Oct 6, 2013#173

Krisken

Mature.

Oct 6, 2013#174

AshburnerX

How is the House's ability to set funding in a bill and exclude the Healthcare Act more sacrosanct than the Senate and President's ability to reject said funding bill for purposefully non-funding something that was lawfully passed (and thus deserves funding)? It's the exact same check and balance system, but the Senate is somehow the bad guys because they want to fund something that the House doesn't?

Nice try, but you can't hold one chamber's ability over another. If anything it means that both chambers (and thus both parties) are equally responsible for this.

Oct 6, 2013#175

strawman

Yes, everyone is responsible. Those portraying one party or the other as more responsible are wrong.

It's the same thing as obama instructing the justice department to stop defending DOMA.

Checks and balances, folks.

Oct 6, 2013#176

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
It's the same thing as obama instructing the justice department to stop defending DOMA.

Oct 6, 2013#177

SpecialKO

This whole "both sides do it" argument might have some validity - except that the ACA isn't being funded through the CR budgetary process. It's already been legally funded. While it can still be defunded by an act of Congress, of course, the movement to defund it has been through using a secondary rider attached to CR for funding government operations, much like how Congresscritters attach pork spending to spending bills. They are separate things that have been stuck together into a single resolution despite not being directly related.

This what the the "clean CR" talk is all about. The narrative that the article tries to set - that the House is submitting its CR for operational funding as part of the normal process and defunding Obamacare is a natural part of that process - is inaccurate and very misleading.

Oct 6, 2013#178

strawman

He point of the article is that the house controls the purse strings. That's intentional. If they decide to hold the purse for one thing that's a valid choice. Just because a previous session chose not to require refunding a bill frequently doesn't mean that a future session can't reverse course on that.

Again, some might disagree. Perhaps they believe spending bills are written in stone or something.

But it's a perspective some here don't seem to understand. The house controls the appropriations. It's not being a bully to withhold money for laws they don't agree with, just as it isn't being a bully to veto a bill or to refuse to sign it in the senate.

They all have a part to play.

Oct 6, 2013#179

Krisken

Yeah, no. Both the House and the Senate have to pass the bill to be signed by the President. To say the House holds the purse strings is wrong.

Oct 6, 2013#180

bhamv3

Actually...

Mr. Mime isn't completely horrible. Base 120 special defense and base 100 special attack means he's often capable of switching in and doing some damage. He also has a niche role as an essential part of the Baton Pass chain strategy, given how he has the Soundproof ability and thus can't be phazed out by Roar or Perish Song. For competitive battling he's usually outclassed by other Psychic-types like Alakazam, and Mr. Mime isn't a Pokemon you can just slap onto a team and expect it to shine. But if you play to its strengths, it's not useless at all.

Pretty dumb looking though.

Oct 6, 2013#181

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yeah, no. Both the House and the Senate have to pass the bill to be signed by the President. To say the House holds the purse strings is wrong.

Tell that to Nicaragua Contras, and the marines who got pulled out of Lebanon against Reagan's wishes when the house cut their funding.

Oct 6, 2013#182

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Yeah, no. Both the House and the Senate have to pass the bill to be signed by the President. To say the House holds the purse strings is wrong.

Exactly. It's also just not one purse. Not all appropriations are the same.

They're not specifically trying to pass a bill about defunding Obamacare, they're attaching it as a secondary condition to a bill that's about keeping the federal budget going. They are two separate things, and trying to say that this is a case of the Senate and House CR budgets being different and not negotiating about it is completely erroneous.

Oct 6, 2013#183

jwhouk

Just tried signing up for a healthcare.gov account - and got a "system is unavailable" notice, after I had finished the signup process.

Oct 6, 2013#184

strawman

Krisken said:
Yeah, no. Both the House and the Senate have to pass the bill to be signed by the President. To say the House holds the purse strings is wrong.

The house has to write appropriations bills. The senate cannot write one and try to pass it in the house.

To say the house holds the purse strings isn't wrong. They don't write the bill, then it can't ever be written in the senate.

Yes, both have to pass it for it to take effect. This means the senate can essentially veto it.

But they can't write it.

The house has spent the last week writing bills to restart the federal government and the senate has been busy refusing them reading, let alone debate.

Oct 6, 2013#185

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
Tell that to Nicaragua Contras, and the marines who got pulled out of Lebanon against Reagan's wishes when the house cut their funding.

Weren't the contras defunded via the NDAA (or w/e they called it at the time) for that year? As in, via the bill that spending for the Contras was always supposed to be determined in?

And did the marines in Lebanon pull out because their funding got pulled or because Congress passed a million non-binding resolutions to withdraw and Reagan finally acquiesced?

Oct 6, 2013#186

Krisken

I'm really not interested in arguing with you, Stienman. The President usually submits a budget proposal, it goes to Congress who then pass a budget in BOTH HOUSES to be signed by the President. So what you really mean is the president writes a proposal, the House writes a bill, and then the Senate decides whether they are off their rocker.

When every bill the House says "Delay that thing which was approved 4 years ago and ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court", I can't say I blame them. You have to change your tune before a new bill will be accepted, and the House just doesn't get doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of crazy.

Oct 6, 2013#187

GasBandit

Krisken said:
When every bill the House says "Delay that thing which was approved 4 years ago and ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court", I can't say I blame them. You have to change your tune before a new bill will be accepted, and the House just doesn't get doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of crazy.

Except the bill that was passed 4 years ago is not what is being implemented now. Parts of it have already been "delayed," including the business mandate. Obama's handed out exemptions like Halloween candy to all his backers and cronies. Don't pretend that what was passed 4 years ago is unsullied and sancrosanct.

Oct 6, 2013#188

strawman

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article I, section 7.

You can disagree with the constitution if you like, but this isn't simply splitting hairs.

Both sides have used these powers from time to time to essentially financially veto actions of prior sessions and other branches of the government.

Oct 6, 2013#189

SpecialKO

stienman said:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article I, section 7.

I'm not sure what you're trying to claim here. Of course the House writes the initial bill form of the budget (whereas the Senate just writes guidance for the House beforehand to show their intentions). Of course, they are free to write a defund Obamacare bill if they want; but they made a conscious choice here to tie it to the federal budget bill, which is a separate thing.

This is not a "the House federal budget bill did not include money for Obamacare because they don't like it and the federal budget determines how Obamacare gets funded" situation. This is a "the House federal budget bill came with a conditional demand that Obamacare also be defunded".

Oct 6, 2013#190

strawman

Yes, that is correct. They are using their power over the purse strings to defund a bill they disagree with.

Oct 6, 2013#191

Krisken

Except it's already been funded. See, that there is where your argument falls flat.

Oct 6, 2013#192

SpecialKO

stienman said:
Yes, that is correct. They are using their power over the purse strings to defund a bill they disagree with.

And their conscious decision to tie that power to the unrelated federal budget bill makes it entirely their responsibility for making it part of the conversation.

Oct 6, 2013#193

Hailey Knight

bhamv3 said:
Actually...

Mr. Mime isn't completely horrible. Base 120 special defense and base 100 special attack means he's often capable of switching in and doing some damage. He also has a niche role as an essential part of the Baton Pass chain strategy, given how he has the Soundproof ability and thus can't be phazed out by Roar or Perish Song. For competitive battling he's usually outclassed by other Psychic-types like Alakazam, and Mr. Mime isn't a Pokemon you can just slap onto a team and expect it to shine. But if you play to its strengths, it's not useless at all.

Pretty dumb looking though.

I suppose it depends on your opponent. The trouble with specialized Pokemon like that is that they tend to only be good in certain circumstances, unlike STAB types where they're good in most circumstances that don't have you facing a Shuckle under the influence of Trick Room/Power Trick combo. I suppose it's just me, but I get nervous tossing out a Substitute and expecting the moment who's building stats to live long enough to Baton Pass them in a competitive battle. I don't experiment a lot because it takes so much time breeding the right IV, and then even more time building up the EVs. Supposedly X/Y have a new function for building those stats more quickly and directly via mini-games, so maybe the competitive field will involve less bullshit and more chances to try new strategies without wasting time building up Pokemon for nothing.

As it is, I don't consider Mr. Mime to be the best choice for that type of strategy. Again, I've never seen anyone use one. Seen Girafarig for Baton Pass. I suppose the Soundproof element would make him worthwhile. Exploud's stats are too low to make it viable for a solid position on a 3 to 4 Pokemon team.

Oct 6, 2013#194

strawman

Krisken said:
Except it's already been funded. See, that there is where your argument falls flat.

You contend that because it's been funded... It cannot be defunded.

Not even the constitution is written in stone, and you propose that the healthcare law is?

SpecialKO said:
And their conscious decision to tie that power to the unrelated federal budget bill makes it entirely their responsibility for making it part of the conversation.

Their responsibility is to ensure the funds gained from taxes are used appropriately. Just the fact alone that the healthcare act is going to be a monumental drain on the federal budget is reason enough to bring it into the conversation.

If the democrats want to keep it, why don't they cut something else out?

Let's not forget how the Early years of the democratically controlled White House and congress doubled the deficit of our country. Had the people not switched one part of congress out we would still be spending like there's no tomorrow.

Simply accepting all the bad decisions of the last several years would be nearly as bad as them controlling the house again as well.

But I understand this won't convince you that what they're doing is completely in line with their constitutional mandate.

Oct 6, 2013#195

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Tell that to Nicaragua Contras, and the marines who got pulled out of Lebanon against Reagan's wishes when the house cut their funding.

I'm pretty sure Reagan found a way to fund those contras. :troll:

Oct 6, 2013#196

Krisken

No, I'm saying it's ludicrous to say the House should be allowed to cause havoc because they don't like something which has already been funded. This is insane, and would be insane no matter which party was doing it.

I also contend this wouldn't be an issue (and we wouldn't have such extreme congressional members) if it wasn't for the 'safe' gerrymandered house seats.

Oct 6, 2013#197

strawman

I suppose then that you'll need to support legislation that prevents them from doing this again.

Oct 6, 2013#198

jwhouk

Krisken, what he's saying is that the House is more or less the sticking point right now as to why the Federal government isn't getting funded.

Because financing bills are required by the Constitution to originate there, they can continue to toss rider after rider onto any continuing spending resolution ad infinitum.

It's scary when you think about it: 435 people are holding the US hostage because they don't want to fund the ACA, and they refuse to send any spending resolution to the Senate that doesn't have a clause that removes funding from the ACA.

And mid-term elections aren't for another year and a month, sadly.[DOUBLEPOST=1381116121,1381115998][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
I suppose then that you'll need to support legislation that prevents them from doing this again.

The question, Mr. Stienman, is what exactly kind of legislation could be agreed upon by all parties that could keep this from being an option again? Short of a constitutional amendment that prevents the government from not paying its debts or not having a budget in a timely manner, it ain't happening anytime soon.

Oct 6, 2013#199

Krisken

If that's what he's saying, then the Senate could do the same thing by not ratifying what they put forth (hence, where were at). It's just not accurate to say "The House has control" because they really don't. I just don't understand the point of continuing to say they 'hold the purse strings' when it's a joint effort by the House and Senate, to be signed by the President.

Oct 6, 2013#200

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
I suppose then that you'll need to support legislation that prevents them from doing this again.

Which they themselves vote upon.

I don't feel Congress should be the body that decides how much power Congress has.

Oct 6, 2013#201

strawman

As far as I'm concerned the system is working. I don't see a need to change their division of power. You are all up in arms about how the house can essentially hold things up until the other parties finally come to the table on a contentious issue, but the senate and president can hold things up as well.

They each have different mandates, and as such the way they hold things up will necessarily be different.

You are irritated at what you see as a gross abuse of power.

I'm irritated at the gross abuse of power that allowed the healthcare act to be put in place in the first place.

If you don't like the state of affairs you can seek to change the balance of power, but I don't think it needs to be changed, I think the system is working as designed and intended, and changing the balance of power will probably cause things to oscillate even more wildly in the future. Who do you give the power to? The president? All well and good until there's someone in there you disagree with and you can't stop them. The senate? Same issue, except now Rhode Island has as much power as California.

You don't have to like it. But you shouldn't whine about it. Ram an unpopular law through during the brief window your party has control, and do you honestly believe it's going to go smoothly until it's fixed? No. We stop the whole bus until everyone is happy, or at least equally unhappy.

Any part of the government can stop the bus. They each have a different method of doing it, but it's the responsibility of all tries to come to the table and hammer out the differences. When one party says, "we will not negotiate" and refuses to discuss the problem, then it is that parties fault.

I understand most of you disagree. You seem to believe that it's the fault of the person pressing on the brakes, rather than those unwilling to work together to find a solution to the problem.

Oct 6, 2013#202

Shakey

stienman said:
I understand most of you disagree. You seem to believe that it's the fault of the person pressing on the brakes, rather than those unwilling to work together to find a solution to the problem.

The problem is the only solution is for the republicans to get what they want. They don't want to find a compromise. If they have one, please tell me what it is. Other than get rid of the health care law, because that's not compromise. That's give me what I want or I'll throw a fit and hurt whoever I can in the process.

Oct 6, 2013#203

strawman

Their current compromise is to delay the healthcare law for one year. Since Obama has already delayed several key portions of it unilaterally for a year anyway, it would seem like not a bad compromise to give both sides more time to hammer the rest of it out.

Oct 6, 2013#204

Hailey Knight

I've felt Congress has had too much power for years. This is another example, not a turning point.

To see this as the system working is to ignore that the system was set-up in the belief that those who are part of it would want to come to a resolution. Issuing ultimatums is not a means towards resolution. But then, no system can be fool-proof.

Oct 6, 2013#205

Shakey

stienman said:
Their current compromise is to delay the healthcare law for one year. Since Obama has already delayed several key portions of it unilaterally for a year anyway, it would seem like not a bad compromise to give both sides more time to hammer the rest of it out.

And you could say that he has compromised time and time again by delaying portions of it and trying to give them the health care bill they once supported to get them to do anything. There comes a time when you have to step back and say it's enough. It's time to stop giving in and stand your ground.

Oct 6, 2013#206

strawman

Heh. Round and round we go.

Oct 6, 2013#207

jwhouk

stienman said:
Heh. Round and round we go.

And this pretty much sums it all up, thanks.

Good night, everyone, drive safely. :Leyla:

Oct 6, 2013#208

SpecialKO

stienman said:
But I understand this won't convince you that what they're doing is completely in line with their constitutional mandate.

I didn't say it's not.

Neither would the Democrats defunding the military in a rider to their own federal budget bill despite the passage of the NDAA. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it the "responsibility of both sides".

Oct 6, 2013#209

Tress

Stupid partisan bullshit. All of it. The House, the Senate, this thread, this country. All of it. People care more about beating "the other guy" than coming up with a solution or making things better. And everything supported by those "other guys" is the end of the world. Blech.

Oct 6, 2013#210

MindDetective

stienman said:
I'm irritated at the gross abuse of power that allowed the healthcare act to be put in place in the first place.

I don't see how TAHA being passed was any more of a failure of the system than the current situation. To put it in your own words: As far as I'm concerned the system [was] working.

An odd thought towards that point: if the system is literally not working, can the system really be still working?

*Edit* Just wanted to add. I am not a big fan of TAHA. I think the rhetoric is horribly overblown about it too.

Oct 7, 2013#211

AshburnerX

The ONLY reason I'm not interested in any sort of compromise on this issue is because it will only encourage both parties to try this tactic more often. That's a message I don't want to be sent to the people who both control this country and seem to not give two shits about it. Do your fucking jobs and stop making the rest of us suffer.

Oct 7, 2013#212

SpecialKO

Yeah, I don't particularly want this to happen again next year when it comes to abortion rights. Or gun ownership the next time party control flips. Or domestic oil drilling. Or, god forbid, the Voting Rights Act or the 14th Amendment.

Oct 7, 2013#213

Bowielee

Jesus Christ, If I see this goddamn post on facebook one more time.

http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/18/w...-s-soil-obama-issuing-martial-law-in-october/

Oct 7, 2013#214

Gilgamesh

Bowielee said:
Jesus Christ, If I see this goddamn post on facebook one more time.

http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/18/w...-s-soil-obama-issuing-martial-law-in-october/

Gotta love those Conservative Libertarians huh?

Oct 7, 2013#215

Ravenpoe

Bowielee said:
Jesus Christ, If I see this goddamn post on facebook one more time.

http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/18/w...-s-soil-obama-issuing-martial-law-in-october/

Why did I read the comments?

Oh who the hell am I kidding... the comments are the only reason I clicked that article. I was not disappointed.

Oct 7, 2013#216

PatrThom

Tress said:
Stupid partisan bullshit. All of it. The House, the Senate, this thread, this country. All of it. People care more about beating "the other guy" than coming up with a solution or making things better. And everything supported by those "other guys" is the end of the world. Blech.

Well, we can't blame the Commies any more, right?

LICD has you covered.

--Patrick

Oct 7, 2013#217

Espy

I'm not a giant fan of TAHA, I think it does a couple good things that the Healthcare Industry needed but is there a better solution? Probably.

My main issue is that right now republicans aren't offering a better solution other than to just keep things the way they are. That's not good enough.

Oct 7, 2013#218

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
I'm pretty sure Reagan found a way to fund those contras.

Someone in his administration did, obviously, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it if you don't contend that the power of the purse rests solely with congress.

... was kinda where I was goin with that.[DOUBLEPOST=1381152654,1381152538][/DOUBLEPOST]

Espy said:
I'm not a giant fan of TAHA, I think it does a couple good things that the Healthcare Industry needed but is there a better solution? Probably.

My main issue is that right now republicans aren't offering a better solution other than to just keep things the way they are. That's not good enough.

To continue an earlier metaphor, when someone says "let's burn the house down," a reasonable response is "no." "Well what's you're reasonable alternative?! You don't have one so we're burning the house down!" is not a valid rejoinder.

Oct 7, 2013#219

Espy

I guess that metaphor fails for me because I can't take people seriously if they think TAHA is going to destroy our country.

Oct 7, 2013#220

jwhouk

For as much as I hate my boss, at least he does have the cajones to stand up to the Feds.

The Wisconsin DNR has actually torn down several barricades put in place by the Feds that are supposed to prevent access to federally-managed lands, because the state has a 52-year-old compact allowing the state to operate those areas.

Oct 7, 2013#221

Bubble181

stienman said:
The BBC's list of top stories, 8 items long, has 3 covering the shutdown. One of them is fascinating to me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24342521

The most interesting part, to me, is the last two paragraphs:

snip

Not entirely true. Belgium effectively shut down for most of a year (not the exact same thing, though - public agencies styayed open but no new works could be undertaken, no new motions passed, no government appointees, no government really) for over a year. One opf the main reasons we're not as completely screwed as we might've been. Socialists wanted to spend their way out of a deficit à la Spain and Greece....Idiots.

Oct 7, 2013#222

GasBandit

Espy said:
I guess that metaphor fails for me because I can't take people seriously if they think TAHA is going to destroy our country.

And some people don't think a toothpick with a bit of red crust on the end can burn down a forest, either, but ask Colorado how that worked out for them.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what plan anybody else has.. The democrats have flat out denied anything but getting everything they want immediately and without reservations "then we can talk." The republicans even tried punting back to simply delaying the individual mandate a year, like the democrats already did the business mandate. But even that's UNPOSSIBLE.

Oct 7, 2013#223

strawman

The best solution is to drop it on the federal level and let the states do it, if they or their population wants it. Then, once many states have many variations and have tried a number of methods of solving this problem, we can apply simple small amounts of federal regulation where that regulation will help normalize things and reduce costs.

Congress decided instead to take one small state's plan, adapt it to 300+ million Americans, and then jump in with both feet and "see how it goes."

As we are already seeing, it's exceeding its projected costs by more than two times, and those who decided to put it in place aren't reforming it so it stays inside its budget.

It can't pay for itself. It's not a small amount of money.

And now that the other party finally has some power they're forcing the issue, as they should, and as could be expected of them due to the way it was passed.
And because the shutdown doesn't hurt enough people, Obama is sending out executive orders to spend more money cutting people off from things the shutdown doesn't really affect. Closing a harbor that doesn't require money to operate day to day? Parks that aren't staffed are now getting security to prevent access? It's a bald faced attempt to make a PR statement and drag people under the same bus that's running over the democrats. A bus they themselves set in motion years ago, and they are now suffering the effects of.

This is as much a states rights issue as it is a budget issue.

And on top of all that, the government, by law and specifically the executive branch, gets unfettered access to all our medical records, whether we buy into the program or not. And we are going to be paying for this loss of rights and invasion of privacy.

It's a small thing, though, and certainly not worth shutting down the government for.

When gas bandit mentions that it's damaging our country, he isn't necessarily thinking financially alone. The transfer of SIGNIFICANT power from individuals and states to the executive branch is staggering. It may not be meaningful to those with only a passing understanding of federal governance, but it is no small thing.

Oct 7, 2013#224

Bubble181

From an outsider's perspective...

A) my sister-in-law and her husband would really love to pass on a message of peace and love. They really enjoy their honeymoon at the Grand Canyon right now, not being able to enter it because of the shutdown. Thanks Obama :troll:

B) For me and most foreigners, as I've stated in the past, the odd thing about this system is that you can link anything to practically anything. If they don't want to vote for a budget with the ACA in it, that's one thing. Using that to shut down everything else seems abusive of the system. It seems like whoever is in control in the House can put a "...and we'll nuke Los Angeles and New York" rider on any bill whatsoever that isn't 100% to their liking and just shut down everything, Madagascar-style, until "the other side" caves. That's not "checks and balances at work", that's an oligarchical dictatorship at work. I know I'm oversimplifying and all, but that's what it looks like. Compromise is supposed to be worked out; playing chicken is irresponsible and an abuse of a good system.

That said, both sides are behaving crappily. Both are too focussed on the short term and twitterpolitics to actually govern.

Oct 7, 2013#225

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
That said, both sides are behaving crappily. Both are too focussed on the short term and twitterpolitics to actually govern.

No, what they're focussed on are private agenda. The public stuff* is what they do to build popular support, and therefore momentum.
That's why I want to read through the stuff so badly, is to try and ferret out exactly what sorts of meta-issues are contained therein. The trouble is that the state of writing legislation these days is like that of obfuscating javascript/actionscript, except that lawmakers have had a loooong head start to perfect their technique.

--Patrick
*meaning the stuff they parade and trumpet in the media.

Oct 7, 2013#226

strawman

PatrThom said:
The trouble is that the state of writing legislation these days is like that of obfuscating javascript/actionscript, except that lawmakers have had a loooong head start to perfect their technique.

The one difference between obfuscated JavaScript and legislation and political process is that one of them is deterministic, no matter how obfuscated it is.

Oct 7, 2013#227

Necronic

stienman said:
The best solution is to drop it on the federal level and let the states do it, if they or their population wants it. Then, once many states have many variations and have tried a number of methods of solving this problem, we can apply simple small amounts of federal regulation where that regulation will help normalize things and reduce costs.

Congress decided instead to take one small state's plan, adapt it to 300+ million Americans, and then jump in with both feet and "see how it goes."

Would this be the current congress or the republican congress of the 90s? Because this was their plan.

As we are already seeing, it's exceeding its projected costs by more than two times, and those who decided to put it in place aren't reforming it so it stays inside its budget.

It can't pay for itself. It's not a small amount of money.

Currently the US spends more per capita on government health insurance than many socialist countries, like Japan or Canada. The current system was financially unsustainable. It's time for a serious change, and its been time for that for years. The republicans have only themselves to blame for not presenting something on their own during their last major mandate. Like, say, the last republican health care plan. Oh wait, that's what was passed.

And now that the other party finally has some power they're forcing the issue, as they should, and as could be expected of them due to the way it was passed.

And because the shutdown doesn't hurt enough people, Obama is sending out executive orders to spend more money cutting people off from things the shutdown doesn't really affect. Closing a harbor that doesn't require money to operate day to day? Parks that aren't staffed are now getting security to prevent access? It's a bald faced attempt to make a PR statement and drag people under the same bus that's running over the democrats. A bus they themselves set in motion years ago, and they are now suffering the effects of.

As opposed to the Republicans who are crying crocodile tears about kids cancer treatments at the NIH? Lets be clear, both sides are being scumbags here.

And on top of all that, the government, by law and specifically the executive branch, gets unfettered access to all our medical records, whether we buy into the program or not. And we are going to be paying for this loss of rights and invasion of privacy.

Do you think the medical industry can continue to work without a centrally managed healthcare database? People are dying regularly due to lack of easily accesible patient information. Maybe there should be an option to opt out of the database, I'm totally fine with that, but I WANT the database. I WANT to make sure that I get the correct treatment.

It's a small thing, though, and certainly not worth shutting down the government for.

When gas bandit mentions that it's damaging our country, he isn't necessarily thinking financially alone. The transfer of SIGNIFICANT power from individuals and states to the executive branch is staggering. It may not be meaningful to those with only a passing understanding of federal governance, but it is no small thing.

Sorry, I missed the last episode of Prison Planet. Please explain to us idiots how this is some massive government conspiracy to imprison us all.

WOLVERINES![DOUBLEPOST=1381166348,1381165908][/DOUBLEPOST]And what I really want to hear from a republican is whether they support repealling the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Because until they either come up with some form of universal health care, or are honest enough to repeal EMTALA and let the poor die, they are simply lying to look good and letting hospitals and patients eat the cost of that unfunded mandate. As far as I am concerned you can't support EMTALA and be against universal health care, because EMTALA just mitigates the guilt without paying for it.[DOUBLEPOST=1381166608][/DOUBLEPOST]If it wasn't for that cowards way out the republicans would look like the monsters they have actually been.

Oct 7, 2013#228

Covar

I'm disappointed you couldn't manage to use the race card there.

Oct 7, 2013#229

Necronic

And I'm not surprised you used the passive aggressive "funny" tag. Grow a pair.

Seriously why are republicans not up in arms about the legality or overreach of EMTALA, which seriously infringes on private businesses. Why is this not an issue to them? Because t doesn't cost the taxpayer? Cost-shifting would say otherwise.

Oct 7, 2013#230

Covar

I was to busy trying to have people dying in the streets to post a full on reply.

Oct 7, 2013#231

Necronic

Covar said:
I was to busy trying to have people dying in the streets to post a full on reply.

I don't even know what that means.

Ed: But seriously. Could a republican please explain to me how they are so up in arms about the ACA and yet they are cool with EMTALA? It's a far more serious over-reach.

And my guess is most of you don't even know what t is.

Oct 7, 2013#232

Covar

Necronic said:
And I'm not surprised you used the passive aggressive "funny" tag. Grow a pair.

I find your post to be a joke, a meaningless plea of emotion that goes one step below accusing people who disagree with your position of wanting to gas anyone who can't afford health care. You talk about the high cost, and how the current system just shifts the cost, yet your solution does nothing to actually reduce the actual costs of healthcare, and certainly does shift costs onto an organization that can in no way pay for it.

Now I'll let you get back to accusing anyone who's not down with you of being sycophants who would love nothing more than to see poor people dying in the streets.

Oct 7, 2013#233

Necronic

So...are you for or against EMTALA? I couldn't figure that out from your post. Because if you're for it, you can't really be against the ACA, at least not for over-reach. And if you're against it, you actually are ok with people dying in the streets (your words not mine.)

Show me a middle way.

Ed: and yeah, I am getting frothy. It's just how I argue.

Oct 7, 2013#234

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I don't even know what that means.

Ed: But seriously. Could a republican please explain to me how they are so up in arms about the ACA and yet they are cool with EMTALA? It's a far more serious over-reach.

And my guess is most of you don't even know what t is.

Because there is a lot more political will behind resisting further government intrusion than there is in reducing extant government intrusion.

That and "I'm sorry you have a sucking chest wound, sir, but we won't be able to provide you care until you provide two forms of payment and fill out these forms" is too much of a democrat campaign waiting to happen.

Oct 7, 2013#235

Espy

Necronic said:
And what I really want to hear from a republican is whether they support repealling the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Because until they either come up with some form of universal health care, or are honest enough to repeal EMTALA and let the poor die, they are simply lying to look good and letting hospitals and patients eat the cost of that unfunded mandate. As far as I am concerned you can't support EMTALA and be against universal health care, because EMTALA just mitigates the guilt without paying for it.

I guess this is kind of where I rest too. My major problem is, I think we as a society have to decide if we are interested in actually taking care of those in need or if we are okay letting people drown in the debt the medical system causes or wither away because insurance companies can basically screw anyone they want when they want. I guess I'm at a point in my life right now where I would rather see people taken care of. Maybe that makes me some kind of horrible person for not holding to my previous "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" mentality but I honestly don't know if that kind of thinking works in the system we have set up. I do know that I don't believe that politicians in either party will save our society or make everything right, but I guess anything is better than nothing at this point.

Oct 7, 2013#236

Necronic

So the lack of will is just because it's been around a while? It has nothing to do with the fact that it's repeal would be WILDLY unpopular, even if it does represent massive government overreach?

I mean, this is the same party that tried to remove funding for poison control centers.

(in response to Gas)[DOUBLEPOST=1381169165,1381169025][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
That and "I'm sorry you have a sucking chest wound, sir, but we won't be able to provide you care until you provide two forms of payment and fill out these forms" is too much of a democrat campaign waiting to happen.

So ideology ends at elections? The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots! Unless its an election cycle.

Oct 7, 2013#237

PatrThom

Necronic said:
Would this be the current congress or the republican congress of the 90s? Because this was their plan.

This was the same argument Kati made, for anyone who might be curious as to what her idea(l)s might be.

--Patrick

Oct 7, 2013#238

Charlie Don't Surf

Fuck States' Rights. You lost the Civil War.

also: Fuck Thomas Sowell.

Oct 7, 2013#239

Necronic

Come on Charlie....now Covar has that race card he was looking for.

Oct 7, 2013#240

strawman

Well, as far as I can tell the republicans are now faintly indicating that they will consider dropping the healthcare issue if their demands are met on budget cutting provisions for several of the big ticket federal budget items.

I don't know if that's any more palatable to the democrats than the healthcare issue, but they would appear to come out the winners of the overall argument if they accept deep concessions to their favorite programs, and that may be the politically expedient thing to do.[DOUBLEPOST=1381169855,1381169778][/DOUBLEPOST]However I expect this whole thing to continue well into next week for an eleventh hour save, as per usual before the possibility of default comes into play.

Oct 7, 2013#241

Krisken

Necronic said:
So ideology ends at elections? The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots! Unless its an election cycle.

Or you agree with them.[DOUBLEPOST=1381169984,1381169886][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
Well, as far as I can tell the republicans are now faintly indicating that they will consider dropping the healthcare issue if their demands are met on budget cutting provisions for several of the big ticket federal budget items.

I don't know if that's any more palatable to the democrats than the healthcare issue, but they would appear to come out the winners of the overall argument if they accept deep concessions to their favorite programs, and that may be the politically expedient thing to do.[DOUBLEPOST=1381169855,1381169778][/DOUBLEPOST]However I expect this whole thing to continue well into next week for an eleventh hour save, as per usual before the possibility of default comes into play.

I suppose that depends. Cutting Medicare without cutting military spending probably won't gain much traction with Democrats.

Oct 7, 2013#242

Necronic

stienman said:
Well, as far as I can tell the republicans are now faintly indicating that they will consider dropping the healthcare issue if their demands are met on budget cutting provisions for several of the big ticket federal budget items.

I agree with this (depending on the cuts). Further, I think that politically it was a mistake to not immediately agree with partial funding for NIH and parks. They should have agreed immediately and said "guys of course we agree, we're not the ones shutting down the government!"

Oct 7, 2013#243

Covar

Necronic said:
Come on Charlie....now Covar has that race card he was looking for.

BINGO!

I'll wait for my prize over here...

Oct 7, 2013#244

GasBandit

Necronic said:
So the lack of will is just because it's been around a while? It has nothing to do with the fact that it's repeal would be WILDLY unpopular, even if it does represent massive government overreach?

I mean, this is the same party that tried to remove funding for poison control centers.

(in response to Gas)[DOUBLEPOST=1381169165,1381169025][/DOUBLEPOST]

So ideology ends at elections? The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots! Unless its an election cycle.

Hey, you asked me why republicans acted the way they do, not Libertarians.

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Fuck States' Rights. You lost the Civil War.

also: Fuck Thomas Sowell.

Wisconsin was not on the losing side of the civil war, and furthermore, the civil war was not on individual states but rather the governmental entity that sought to replace the US Federal Government for those states. If you think reconstruction is still ongoing, you're an idiot. But then, look who I'm addressing...

Oct 7, 2013#245

Necronic

Man we have this Bingo night at an Elks lodge near me where all the 20 somethings go and get wasted (4$ pitchers). The old timers get super pissed when O-69 gets called and everyone shouts "wooooooooooOOOOOOooooooo"

Oct 7, 2013#246

SpecialKO

Covar said:
BINGO!

I'll wait for my prize over here...

You might be waiting a long time, I don't think we've had gift giving built into the forum for a while (I went looking for it, since you asked for a prize).

Oct 7, 2013#247

Covar

SpecialKO said:
You might be waiting a long time, I don't think we've had gift giving built into the forum for a while

THANKS OBAMA!

Oct 7, 2013#248

Necronic

Never not Thanks Obama.

Oct 7, 2013#249

strawman

Necronic said:
Man we have this Bingo night at an Elks lodge near me where all the 20 somethings go and get wasted (4$ pitchers). The old timers get super pissed when O-69 gets called and everyone shouts "wooooooooooOOOOOOooooooo"

You live in Virginia? The Supreme Court just knocked down the anti sodomy laws that included oral sex.

Could be the old timers are just jealous.

Oct 7, 2013#250

Necronic

Old people sex. Bleahhhh.

Joking aside, I'm still very curious how republicans can be so adamantly against the ACA as an over reach and yet they don't be an eye at EMTALA.

Oct 7, 2013#251

SpecialKO

stienman said:
You live in Virginia? The Supreme Court just knocked down the anti sodomy laws that included oral sex.

TIL that "sodomy" can cover a wider variety of activities...or possibly just in Virginia.

Oct 7, 2013#252

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Old people sex. Bleahhhh.

Joking aside, I'm still very curious how republicans can be so adamantly against the ACA as an over reach and yet they don't be an eye at EMTALA.

I thought I answered that already, but I'll try again to be clearer -

The RINOs have no problem with either.

The Tea Party candidates have ideological problems with both but pick their battles because they can't win on EMTALA, and yes, ideology only happens in elections when it helps win them.[DOUBLEPOST=1381172191,1381172125][/DOUBLEPOST]

SpecialKO said:
TIL that "sodomy" can cover a wider variety of activities...or possibly just in Virginia.

"Sodomy" pretty much means anything that isn't a penis (and only a penis) in a vagina (and only a vagina).

Oct 7, 2013#253

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
"Sodomy" pretty much means anything that isn't a penis (and only a penis) in a vagina (and only a vagina).

I'm apparently much more of a deviant than I thought I was.

Oct 7, 2013#254

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
"Sodomy" pretty much means anything that isn't a penis (and only a penis) in a vagina (and only a vagina).

It's such a lonely word.

--Patrick

Oct 7, 2013#255

Frank

Unless it's gomorrahy, which is an even more unspeakable act.

Oct 7, 2013#256

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
I'm apparently much more of a deviant than I thought I was.

Aren't we all.

Oct 7, 2013#257

strawman

Necronic said:
...very curious how...

When there is no ideal solution, so choose the least bad of all the possible solutions.

If you only look at things from a financial and business perspective, you might indeed come to the conclusion that the two viewpoints are incompatible. However if you figure in the human component as a weighted factor it might push you to favor one end over the other even though in other aspects both might be a poor choice according to your particular position.

I'm sure there are multiple apparently conflicting viewpoints you hold that you might not currently recognize that you could readily justify by taking into account all your perspectives rather than your primary political motivations.

In fact it's things like telling people they can't hold both viewpoints that serve to widen the partisan divide. Forcing people to choose one or the other and telling them they aren't allowed to factor in their life's experiences and choose both is a tool politicians use to garner support for their cause.

Oct 7, 2013#258

Necronic

Ed: Ninja'd

GasBandit said:
I thought I answered that already, but I'll try again to be clearer -

The RINOs have no problem with either.

The Tea Party candidates have ideological problems with both but pick their battles because they can't win on EMTALA, and yes, ideology only happens in elections when it helps win them.[DOUBLEPOST=1381172191,1381172125][/DOUBLEPOST]
"Sodomy" pretty much means anything that isn't a penis (and only a penis) in a vagina (and only a vagina).

GasBandit said:
I thought I answered that already, but I'll try again to be clearer -

The RINOs have no problem with either.

The Tea Party candidates have ideological problems with both but pick their battles because they can't win on EMTALA, and yes, ideology only happens in elections when it helps win them.).

Well yeah you answered it but like you said you're a libertarian, and your answer is way too honest to be reflective. I want to see a republican explain this to me. Because I doubt they will say the same thing.[DOUBLEPOST=1381173001][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
When there is no ideal solution, so choose the least bad of all the possible solutions.

If you only look at things from a financial and business perspective, you might indeed come to the conclusion that the two viewpoints are incompatible. However if you figure in the human component as a weighted factor it might push you to favor one end over the other even though in other aspects both might be a poor choice according to your particular position.

I'm sure there are multiple apparently conflicting viewpoints you hold that you might not currently recognize that you could readily justify by taking into account all your perspectives rather than your primary political motivations.

In fact it's things like telling people they can't hold both viewpoints that serve to widen the partisan divide. Forcing people to choose one or the other and telling them they aren't allowed to factor in their life's experiences and choose both is a tool politicians use to garner support for their cause.

We aren't the ones that drew a line in the sand. The republicans did that when they cried "constitution". They made it a battle of ideologies and used that as justification for their current strategy of victory by any means.

You don't get to call this bill the end of democracy when a bill just as bad was signed into law by Reagan.

Oct 7, 2013#259

strawman

I don't understand why you believe it's impossible, but obviously it's not only possible, but apparently common.

Oh well. I guess your search for an explanation that makes sense to you has been in vain.

Please use this opportunity to claim that you are superior in to those who are unable to grasp the magnitude of their execrable hypocrisy.

Oct 7, 2013#260

Krisken

There's plenty of hypocrisy going around in this thread. I'd be careful slinging that word around.

Oct 7, 2013#261

strawman

I am a hypocrite. I'd like to think it comes as part of being human, but from how people talk around here you'd think I'm the only one.

Oct 7, 2013#262

Necronic

Right but when most people recognize their hypocrisy they don't maintain the stances that got them there, or at least evaluate them/admit their views are problematic.

Your response seems to be to get indignant that I am pointing out how hypocritical a stance it is.

Oct 7, 2013#263

Krisken

stienman said:
I am a hypocrite. I'd like to think it comes as part of being human, but from how people talk around here you'd think I'm the only one.

Most people recognizing their hypocrisy tend to decide they should examine where that comes from. I know I often get jarred by my own hypocrisies and try very hard to reconcile them to be more in line with my ideals/beliefs. I guess I'm a little surprised you're so willing to throw up your hands and accept it.

Oct 7, 2013#264

strawman

I don't accept it. I work on better behaving according to my own beliefs and standards and adjusting those standards when I find better information.

It's a process, or goal, not a checkbox.

Oct 7, 2013#265

Necronic

It's not even the accepting it that I find problematic. I accept some of my hypocrisies. The problem is accepting the hypocrisy while also taking a very strong stance on one side of it.

If you can't fully convince yourself of the argument how do you expect to convince us?

Oct 7, 2013#266

strawman

What you appear to fail to recognize is that I am not arguing with myself about these two ideas. If you read attentively you'll find I don't have a problem with healthcare reform and some limited form of universal healthcare. I disagree with this current plan, but that doesn't mean that I want people to live without access to essential healthcare.

So for me there's really no problem, and I can't understand why you might think there is. I don't represent the republicans. Many of their goals align with some of mine, but there are many that don't.

I have attempted to show you that it's possible to hold both beliefs and still be self consistent even if you fully oppose healthcare but you've rejected that explanation. I accept that you've rejected it, and have no further desire to try to convince you otherwise.

You and I will simply have to disagree on whether it's hypocrisy on my part, or hypocrisy on the part of the theoretical republican that opposes one and supports the other.

For my part I don't believe these are at odds with each other, and therefore don't suffer any intellectual friction on this issue.

But you may disagree. That's fine.

Oct 7, 2013#267

Necronic

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think you are still avoiding answering a simple question.

Oct 7, 2013#268

GasBandit

CNN polling (for what that's worth) is now saying 63% blame republicans, 57% blame democrats, and 53% blame Obama (there's overlap between the 3)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/07/cnn-shutdown-poll-plenty-of-blame-to-go-around/

Oct 7, 2013#269

Eriol

GasBandit said:
CNN polling (for what that's worth) is now saying 63% blame republicans, 57% blame democrats, and 53% blame Obama (there's overlap between the 3)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/07/cnn-shutdown-poll-plenty-of-blame-to-go-around/

Regardless of the topic, if possible, I like "you can answer yes to all"-type polls. I think it gives a better picture of opinion, rather than needing to select "most agree with" or the like.

On a related note, I'm also a fan of instant-runoff elections.

Oct 7, 2013#270

GasBandit

Eriol said:
On a related note, I'm also a fan of instant-runoff elections.

Very much me too. I wish we could get some of that down here and abolish the primary elections.

Oct 7, 2013#271

Hailey Knight

Obama's going to need to back off his "no negotiating" for at least the debt stuff. He's not going to keep the Democrats in line with that stance on that particular issue. Democrats love to spend money as much as Republicans.

As for the current considered compromise, I'm torn. On the one hand, I don't think the Republicans should be aiming at Social Security and Medicare, on the other hand, shouldn't ACA make Medicare obsolete? And I have no confidence Social Security's going to survive much longer despite the money we're all pouring into it.

Side-note: I feel like we need a group to represent the people which can stand against the group that was supposed to represent the people.

Oct 7, 2013#272

jwhouk

That's kinda the problem: we really haven't stopped fighting the Civil War, 150 years later. Even with Obama in office.

Oct 7, 2013#273

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
That's kinda the problem: we really haven't stopped fighting the Civil War, 150 years later. Even with Obama in office.

More like especially with Obama in office. If anything, he's done more to polarize the country than any president in living memory, and I'm not talking about race.

Oct 7, 2013#274

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
More like especially with Obama in office. If anything, he's done more to polarize the country than any president in living memory, and I'm not talking about race.

I'd argue G.W.B. lit and fed that fire, but throwing Obama into the mess just made it worse.

Oct 7, 2013#275

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
I'd argue G.W.B. lit and fed that fire, but throwing Obama into the mess just made it worse.

Yeah, hibachi, meet gallon of gasoline.

Oct 7, 2013#276

jwhouk

Thousands of years from now, they'll look back on the history of the United States of America, and summarize it with that one statement: "They never did figure it out about slavery and racism."

Oct 8, 2013#277

Bowielee

Espy said:
I guess this is kind of where I rest too. My major problem is, I think we as a society have to decide if we are interested in actually taking care of those in need or if we are okay letting people drown in the debt the medical system causes or wither away because insurance companies can basically screw anyone they want when they want. I guess I'm at a point in my life right now where I would rather see people taken care of. Maybe that makes me some kind of horrible person for not holding to my previous "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" mentality but I honestly don't know if that kind of thinking works in the system we have set up. I do know that I don't believe that politicians in either party will save our society or make everything right, but I guess anything is better than nothing at this point.

One of my whole problems with the "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument is that some people don't have bootstraps to pull up. The ideal that we are a country where anyone can make their own way with a little grit and determination is laughably naive given the current state of the poor in our country.

Oct 8, 2013#278

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
One of my whole problems with the "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument is that some people don't have bootstraps to pull up. The ideal that we are a country where anyone can make their own way with a little grit and determination is laughably naive given the current state of the poor in our country.

Even today, the poor in our country have it better than the middle class in most of europe.

Oct 8, 2013#279

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
Even today, the poor in our country have it better than the middle class in most of europe.

That is patently incorrect. The median middle class salary in Europe is roughly the same as in America.

Oct 8, 2013#280

jwhouk

That's debatable in some places.

Like, say, up here in NC Wisconsin.

Oct 8, 2013#281

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
That is patently incorrect. The median middle class salary in Europe is roughly the same as in America.

Everything's more expensive in europe, and they live in veritable closets.

I don't see how you can possibly hold the opinions you do. Poverty in the US means Air conditioning, an iPhone, Cable TV and an X-Box, if not a PC.

Oct 8, 2013#282

Bowielee

I get the distinct impression that you don't actually know poor people. If you're lucky enough to live in a rural environment with a decently low cost of living, yes, poverty level families are practically middle class, such as the small town I grew up in Michigan. However, the entire country is not one even blanket of living costs.

Oct 8, 2013#283

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
I get the distinct impression that you don't actually know poor people. If you're lucky enough to live in a rural environment with a decently low cost of living, yes, poverty level families are practically middle class, such as the small town I grew up in Michigan. However, the entire country is not one even blanket of living costs.

Hey hey it's my old friend, fallacious subjectivity! Meet my friend the statistics of the Census Bureau.

Oct 8, 2013#284

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
Hey hey it's my old friend, fallacious subjectivity! Meet my friend the statistics of the Census Bureau.

And this is on par with a good chunk of European countries as well.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/GBR.html
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/USA.html

These are going to be just about the same for most first world countries. I don't see how that invalidates my argument. We're not talking about other first world countries, and I'm assuming you're not ridiculous enough to bring up the strawman that our poor are better off then the poor in developing countries, because it has no bearing on the argument. Sure, if you want to compare a poverty stricken person in America to a poverty stricken person in Uganda, of course we have many more opportunities, but if you're looking simply at our country, we need to look at the reasons why the income gap between poor citizens and rich citizens is becoming so large. That is the issue, not that every poor person has a microwave.[DOUBLEPOST=1381210964,1381210720][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, here's something you may not know about me, I'm a HUGE fan of free market capitalism. It's one of the best forms of economic systems that exists. The problem is that people are so concerned about reducing government control, they tend to forget that we're just exchanging government restrictions on markets to corporate restrictions on markets. That's why government intervention is a necessary evil, otherwise fun things like monopolies and oligopolies start forming.

Oct 8, 2013#285

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
And this is on par with a good chunk of European countries as well.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/GBR.html
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/USA.html

These are going to be just about the same for most first world countries. I don't see how that invalidates my argument. We're not talking about other first world countries, and I'm assuming you're not ridiculous enough to bring up the strawman that our poor are better off then the poor in developing countries, because it has no bearing on the argument. Sure, if you want to compare a poverty stricken person in America to a poverty stricken person in Uganda, of course we have many more opportunities, but if you're looking simply at our country, we need to look at the reasons why the income gap between poor citizens and rich citizens is becoming so large. That is the issue, not that every poor person has a microwave.[DOUBLEPOST=1381210964,1381210720][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, here's something you may not know about me, I'm a HUGE fan of free market capitalism. It's one of the best forms of economic systems that exists. The problem is that people are so concerned about reducing government control, they tend to forget that we're just exchanging government restrictions on markets to corporate restrictions on markets. That's why government intervention is a necessary evil, otherwise fun things like monopolies and oligopolies start forming.

Ok, you want to compare the US and GBR? The income level looks on par, but the cost of living tells the story -

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...ountry1=United+States&country2=United+Kingdom

Consumer Prices in United Kingdom are 30.44% higher than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in United Kingdom are 27.97% higher than in United States
Rent Prices in United Kingdom are 22.24% higher than in United States
Restaurant Prices in United Kingdom are 41.07% higher than in United States
Groceries Prices in United Kingdom are 16.07% higher than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in United Kingdom is 32.04% lower than in United States

Now, I'm all in favor of trustbusting and making sure competition is the name of the game in the marketplace. I agree with you there that killing monopolies is the duty of a responsible government over a capitalist system. But that's not what's happening - the market isn't diversifying, it's being nationalized, which is the very antithesis of competition.

Oct 8, 2013#286

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
Ok, you want to compare the US and GBR? The income level looks on par, but the cost of living tells the story -

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United States&country2=United Kingdom

Consumer Prices in United Kingdom are 30.44% higher than in United States

Consumer Prices Including Rent in United Kingdom are 27.97% higher than in United States

Rent Prices in United Kingdom are 22.24% higher than in United States

Restaurant Prices in United Kingdom are 41.07% higher than in United States

Groceries Prices in United Kingdom are 16.07% higher than in United States

Local Purchasing Power in United Kingdom is 32.04% lower than in United States

Now, I'm all in favor of trustbusting and making sure competition is the name of the game in the marketplace. I agree with you there that killing monopolies is the duty of a responsible government over a capitalist system. But that's not what's happening - the market isn't diversifying, it's being nationalized, which is the very antithesis of competition.

How is the market being nationalized? Government regulations on the market are lower then they have been since the New Deal. If anything, we're seeing what happens when government restrictions are stripped away entirely. How do you think the housing bubble happened? Banks and credit agencies never should have been allowed to produce all those junk loans.[DOUBLEPOST=1381211762,1381211638][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, you obviously didn't look at those links, because it's not just a comparison of median incomes.

Oct 8, 2013#287

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
How is the market being nationalized? Government regulations on the market are lower then they have been since the New Deal. If anything, we're seeing what happens when government restrictions are stripped away entirely. How do you think the housing bubble happened? Banks and credit agencies never should have been allowed to produce all those junk loans.

Those "Junk Loans" were the only way that the market could find to reconcile the forced social engineering of leftist policy wonks who decided that everybody needed to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. The misbehavior was encouraged at every level by hacks like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and every alarm that was attempted to be raised about the impending disaster was shouted down by the same people as racism and plutocracy. One bank went under, a sacrificial lamb, but the government has pumped trillions in "quantitative easing" and bailouts into making sure that their cronies in big finance (and the auto industry too) didn't have to suffer the consequences. It goes on to this day. Privatized profits and socialized risk is no way to run a railroad - there has to be consequences as well as rewards, or Capitalism turns into that bastard evil twin of capitalism, Crony Capitalism, AKA Fascism with a Smiley Face. Our schools are being shoehorned into Common Core if they want those oh-so-vital federal dollars. Our health insurance industry is being put through the play-doh fun factory that is Obamacare regulations, based on the ultimate form of anticapitalism - compulsory commerce. The government is picking the winners and losers in the economy, not the market forces. And you know the next step when the health insurance industry collapses from the crushing weight of TACA, the government narrative (eagerly parroted and amplified by the media) will be "Welp, we tried it with a private market solution and it didn't work. National socialized single payer healthcare it is!" And once an entity controls Education and Healthcare, the future is its oyster.

Oct 8, 2013#288

tegid

GasBandit said:
Everything's more expensive in europe, and they live in veritable closets.

I don't see how you can possibly hold the opinions you do. Poverty in the US means Air conditioning, an iPhone, Cable TV and an X-Box, if not a PC.

I see your A/C, iPhone, consummerist shit (which I love, but is clearly not necessary for living), and raise you a universal healthcare

Oct 8, 2013#289

Bubble181

tegid said:
I see your A/C, iPhone, consummerist shit (which I love, but is clearly not necessary for living), and raise you a universal healthcare

I was just going to post this. Saying groceries are more expensive is nice, but every "poor" Brit still has access to free healthcare - albeit a flawed and crappy version of it, it's still better than even most private healthcare plans in the US at this moment, and would cost you easily upwards of $200 a month.

Go a bit further and compare to Belgium or Germany, and you can throw in nearly free education, laughably cheap higher education, and so on.

Comparing only the parts that suit you is cheating, boys

Oct 8, 2013#290

GasBandit

How nice for your tiny, highly taxed and ultimately impotent nations.

Oct 8, 2013#291

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
How nice for your tiny, highly taxed and ultimately impotent nations.

How very un-nice for us.

I started to write out some statistics about our situation, but take my word for the fact that we haven't really been able to afford anything "new" since about 2006. There are many features of these "backwards" economies I would very much enjoy right now.

--Patrick

Oct 8, 2013#292

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
How very un-nice for us.

I started to write out some statistics about our situation, but take my word for the fact that we haven't really been able to afford anything "new" since about 2006. There are many features of these "backwards" economies I would very much enjoy right now.

--Patrick

Well, naturally, we're in the biggest economic slump since the Great Depression. If we can manage to get the boot off of jobmakers' throats though, it's conceivable we could claw our way back to being the envy of the world. But I doubt that will happen. The American public hungers for the safety of chains.

Oct 8, 2013#293

tegid

GasBandit said:
How nice for your tiny, highly taxed and ultimately impotent nations.

I was half joking, I don't know if you are but just in case: that's a non sequitur, obviously. You say: our poor have X, as opposed to yours. I answer: but they have Y, as opposed to yours. Taxes are related to that in that they are needed to support such a system, but they don't affect poor people's lives very much. The people affected the most are rich people. So our poor are better off, and our rich are worse off? Fine by me.

Also, more than tiny I'd say we are densely populated. After all, the European Union has ~500 million inhabitants vs your 300 in 28 states vs your 52.

Ps.: funnily enough, Spain has relatively low taxes. I support higher taxes. It works for Belgium, Germany, France, etc.
Ps.2.: Fuck, I forgot college education. That does a lot more to the dignity of a person than gadgets, I'd say.

Oct 8, 2013#294

GasBandit

tegid said:
I was half joking, I don't know if you are but just in case: that's a non sequitur, obviously. You say: our poor have X, as opposed to yours. I answer: but they have Y, as opposed to yours. Taxes are related to that in that they are needed to support such a system, but they don't affect poor people's lives very much. The people affected the most are rich people. So our poor are better off, and our rich are worse off? Fine by me.

Also, more than tiny I'd say we are densely populated. After all, the European Union has ~500 million inhabitants vs your 300 in 28 states vs your 52.

Ps.: funnily enough, Spain has relatively low taxes. I support higher taxes. It works for Belgium, Germany, France, etc.
Ps.2.: Fuck, I forgot college education. That does a lot more to the dignity of a person than gadgets, I'd say.

Yes, as I knew you were being flippant, so was I.

A small, dense population is a boon when trying to implement socialist policy. But the EU isn't your "federal government" like ours is - the EU itself doesn't handle your health care, each member nation does that for its own population. Some of our states do that too - ObamaCare was modeled on the health care system of Massachusetts (but whose creator has now essentially called a "trainwreck").

I know you love high taxes, I think we've discussed it before.

I'll just say you guys are lucky you have Germany amongst you and so willing to shoulder your burdens, or you'd all be closer to Greece.

Oct 8, 2013#295

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
I'll just say you guys are lucky you have Germany amongst you and so willing to shoulder your burdens, or you'd all be closer to Greece.

And an amazing amount of people still believe that acting more like Greece and France is what is needed, and acting like Germany is what's causing the crisis. I'm not a right-wing nutjob, but sometimes, I seriously question the intelligence and sanity of many of my ~~comrades~~ ~~peers~~ compatriots.

Oct 8, 2013#296

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
And an amazing amount of people still believe that acting more like Greece and France is what is needed, and acting like Germany is what's causing the crisis. I'm not a right-wing nutjob, but sometimes, I seriously question the intelligence and sanity of many of my ~~comrades peers~~ compatriots.

... really? Rioting against government austerity is what you think Europe should aspire to?

Oct 8, 2013#297

papachronos

GasBandit said:
... really? Rioting against government austerity is what you think Europe should aspire to?

I think he was saying that lots of people think Greece/France style spending is the answer, and he questions their sanity for thinking so.

Oct 8, 2013#298

Eriol

I agree with papachronos. I think you read that exactly backwards Gas. In Europe, Germany is the one with the money, and many of the others are going bankrupt.

Oct 8, 2013#299

GasBandit

papachronos said:
I think he was saying that lots of people think Greece/France style spending is the answer, and he questions their sanity for thinking so.

Ah, my mistake. You gents will have to excuse me if I have an occasional lapse of understanding today, my head cold grows ever more acute and the Traffic Director is still in the hospital, so I am at work when I should really be in bed.

Also

Oct 8, 2013#300

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
If we can manage to get the boot off of jobmakers' throats though

We did. That's when most of them fled to China to chase the lower labor rates. Then, once transportation costs skyrocketed, many of them relocated again to Latin America.

--Patrick

Oct 8, 2013#301

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
We did. That's when most of them fled to China to chase the lower labor rates. Then, once transportation costs skyrocketed, many of them relocated again to Latin America.

--Patrick

I feel like people tend to forget that one of Bush's biggest pushes while in office was to actively encourage outsourcing labor to other countries.

Oct 8, 2013#302

strawman

We don't want labor. We want educated citizens to pursue higher level activities than manual unskilled labor, where possible. It improves their income, and improves our economy.

Oct 8, 2013#303

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
We don't want labor. We want educated citizens to pursue higher level activities than manual unskilled labor, where possible. It improves their income, and improves our economy.

Yeah, but not everyone can do that. Our country needs to have exports, not just imports.

Oct 8, 2013#304

Krisken

stienman said:
We don't want labor. We want educated citizens to pursue higher level activities than manual unskilled labor, where possible. It improves their income, and improves our economy.

And it would be great if there was enough of those positions available for everyone. That just isn't the case.

Oct 8, 2013#305

AshburnerX

Quotemander Prime said:
Yeah, but not everyone can do that. Our country needs to have exports, not just imports.

Actually, one of the biggest exports America has is finished machinery. Many other countries just don't have the skill, talent, or resources to make big production machines or extremely fine and delicate machines. To put it simply, if you want a cellphone, you can get it from China... but if you want a robotic arm for surgery, an MRI, a giant drilling machine or any of the literally hundreds of machines that can't fail EVER then you buy American.

Oct 8, 2013#306

GasBandit

The US is now one of the least business-friendly economies in the world. Increased regulation, compulsory expenses, and the added taxation that necessarily follows runaway government spending is not the way to convince companies that thought they could do better elsewhere to come back.

But hey, let's go ahead and build a figurative economic Berlin Wall. The literal one worked so well, after all.

Oct 8, 2013#307

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
But hey, let's go ahead and build a figurative economic Berlin Wall. The literal one worked so well, after all.

So did the earlier model.

--Patrick

Oct 8, 2013#308

bhamv3

PatrThom said:
So did the earlier model.

--Patrick

Yeah, the Great Wall wasn't all that great. It was better when the Chinese just got down to business, to defeat the Huns.

Oct 8, 2013#309

Ravenpoe

bhamv3 said:
Yeah, the Great Wall wasn't all that great. It was better when the Chinese just got down to business, to defeat the Huns.

Did they send them daughters, when they asked for sons?

Oct 8, 2013#310

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
Did they send them daughters, when they asked for sons?

Only if you ask Mitt Romney.

Oct 8, 2013#311

Hailey Knight

New York Times says if an election was held today, Democrats would gain 30 seats in the House.

(hahaha)

Okay, let's pretend that's true--it doesn't matter. Because the election is next year. None of this is going to matter by then. If this was 2014, there wouldn't have been a shutdown. In an election year, they would've figured out a compromise before it got to this point.

Oct 8, 2013#312

Krisken

Holy crap, are Republicans really saying we can't default? Wow. Part of me is terrified, part of me can't wait to see what happens.

Oct 8, 2013#313

Tress

Fuck it. At least when the country goes up in flames, I'll be able to point and laugh at the idiots who caused it.

Oct 8, 2013#314

Hailey Knight

White House spokesperson relays Obama message about debt, that if Congress spends the money, Congress pays the bill.

... except no, we pay the bill. We pay for all your shit, you stupid politicians. Do you think the magical money fairy shows up with magical funds? It comes from us, you twats. And I'm not one of those "no taxes" people, but I wish the people up top understood they get to live so large and lazily because of the rest of us.

If things don't shape up in the next two weeks, I'm gonna have to find a new job.

Oct 8, 2013#315

PatrThom

Here's a useful site (mentioned by Reddit) showing what, exactly, is being shut down.
I can't verify the figures (and there are some discussions in the comments), but it's easy to comprehend.

--Patrick

Oct 8, 2013#316

GasBandit

The most unshut shutdown ever. Especially considering those parks, monuments and museums are not so much shut down (as in abandoned and left empty and open) as barricaded (as in costing time, money and manpower to inconvenience the public as much as possible while missing entirely what "shut down" means).

Oct 8, 2013#317

PatrThom

Thank you, Reddit, for this amusing meme.

*DERP*

--Patrick

Oct 8, 2013#318

Krisken

Needs a flag pin.

Oct 8, 2013#319

PatrThom

Krisken said:
Needs a flag pin.

Agreed. Or one o' them Uncle Sam hats.

--Patrick

Oct 8, 2013#320

GasBandit

He kinda reminds me of Mitch McConnell.

Oct 9, 2013#321

Bubble181

Oct 9, 2013#322

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
The most unshut shutdown ever. Especially considering those parks, monuments and museums are not so much shut down (as in abandoned and left empty and open) as barricaded (as in costing time, money and manpower to inconvenience the public as much as possible while missing entirely what "shut down" means).

Of course it's a small price compared to the price that it would be to repair our monuments of the damage that would happen if they were just left empty and open.

And of course the families of the military members killed last week probably disagree with you considering how they are going to be paying for the funerals of their sons, fathers and husbands out of their own pocket due to the fact that the death benefits aren't going to be paid. And in the next week thousands of veterans will definitely disagree with you when their benefits don't come in. Of course you don't give a shit about any of them.

Oct 9, 2013#323

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
Of course it's a small price compared to the price that it would be to repair our monuments of the damage that would happen if they were just left empty and open.

And of course the families of the military members killed last week probably disagree with you considering how they are going to be paying for the funerals of their sons, fathers and husbands out of their own pocket due to the fact that the death benefits aren't going to be paid. And in the next week thousands of veterans will definitely disagree with you when their benefits don't come in. Of course you don't give a shit about any of them.

Ad hominems aside, what you describe about benefits is consistent with what I said - only the parts of government that will most directly inconvenience/harm the general public are being shut down, but rest assured that Camp David is still up and running in case the president decides he needs to get away and de-stress. As for the monuments, there is a municipal police department, you know. A federal shutdown doesn't affect that. But did you know in previous shutdowns, those monuments were left operating too? As was said previously, they're expending MORE resources barricading them off than they were running them normally.

Oct 9, 2013#324

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
As was said previously, they're expending MORE resources barricading them off than they were running them normally.

You...you don't think they're not shutting down, but fortifying, do you?

--Patrick

Oct 9, 2013#325

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Ad hominems aside, what you describe about benefits is consistent with what I said - only the parts of government that will most directly inconvenience/harm the general public are being shut down, but rest assured that Camp David is still up and running in case the president decides he needs to get away and de-stress. As for the monuments, there is a municipal police department, you know. A federal shutdown doesn't affect that. But did you know in previous shutdowns, those monuments were left operating too? As was said previously, they're expending MORE resources barricading them off than they were running them normally.

Going to need evidence for the monuments being left open cause all I've been able to find is pictures from 1995 where the lincoln memorial was barricaded and shut down or references to all monuments and museums being closed in 1990. And no I don't think that a municipal police department can be depended on to protect our national heritage.

Camp David is probably mandatory spending which is not effected same way that Social Security checks'll still be going out, Medicare is still going out and Obamacare is going into effect. It's insane and shitty but not evidence of some conspiracy. The shutdown only effects discretionary spending.

Oct 9, 2013#326

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
Going to need evidence for the monuments being left open cause all I've been able to find is pictures from 1995 where the lincoln memorial was barricaded and shut down or references to all monuments and museums being closed in 1990. And no I don't think that a municipal police department can be depended on to protect our national heritage.

Camp David is probably mandatory spending which is not effected same way that Social Security checks'll still be going out, Medicare is still going out and Obamacare is going into effect. It's insane and shitty but not evidence of some conspiracy. The shutdown only effects discretionary spending.

Conspiracy is too grand a term - simply illustration of misplaced priorities and unstatesmanlike motivations.

The services booth was closed at the lincoln memorial in 1995, but the memorial itself was left accessible, unlike this time.

Oct 9, 2013#327

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Conspiracy is too grand a term - simply illustration of misplaced priorities and unstatesmanlike motivations.

The services booth was closed at the lincoln memorial in 1995, but the memorial itself was left accessible, unlike this time.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/19/politics/gallery/1995-government-shutdown/index.html

First picture is the lincoln memorial with barricades around it.

Oct 9, 2013#328

Covar

Thank god for barricades and the federal government! Without it the peasants would reduce the Lincoln Memorial, turning it to a pile of rubble and graffiti. No mere municpal law enforcement (ugh just saying the words makes me sick) could ever hope to keep us safe from the unwashed riff-raff who wait for the slightest chance of anarchy, chaos, and rioting. Praise be to the government for keeping our royal treasures out of reach of the common people.

Now if you'll excuse me I have state property to vandalize, because believe it or not there's not a single federal employee protecting it.

Oct 9, 2013#329

Krisken

In July the Lincoln Memorial was vandalized with graffiti. Even with guards, someone got in and messed it up. So yeah, I can understand keeping people out when there are even less people to watch over the place.

Oct 9, 2013#330

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/19/politics/gallery/1995-government-shutdown/index.html

First picture is the lincoln memorial with barricades around it.

Well, I'm not sure how to reconcile this - Mercury news has both your photo and mine in a slideshow - the barricades dated nov 15th-

But yet also the one with tourists inside with the info booth closed, dated nov 16th.

It also has this one showing the Washington Monument operating on Nov 10th.

Oct 9, 2013#331

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Well, I'm not sure how to reconcile this - Mercury news has both your photo and mine in a slideshow - the barricades dated nov 15th-

But yet also the one with tourists inside with the info booth closed, dated nov 16th.

It also has this one showing the Washington Monument operating on Nov 10th.

Yeah that's my problem. I mean I can think of any number of ways those pictures came into being within the same shutdown. But they add enough ambiguity that I don't trust the first article you posted.

Oct 9, 2013#332

Espy

Last I heard Obama orchestrated this so that he could bring in the UN Army to take over America and then institute Sharia Law and force us to be muslims.

I can't verify that but, you know, sounds legit.

Oct 9, 2013#333

strawman

Keep in mind that the last shutdown was before 9/11 and the government is all the more careful about letting anyone have access to places where the public gathers without careful scrutiny.

Still, some of the enforced shutdowns are hilariously inappropriate.

Oct 9, 2013#334

SpecialKO

Espy said:
Last I heard Obama orchestrated this so that he could bring in the UN Army to take over America

The what?

Oct 9, 2013#335

Eriol

GDI maybe?

Oct 9, 2013#336

Espy

SpecialKO said:
The what?

You read that right.

Oct 9, 2013#337

GasBandit

Don't tell washington! Don't tell SECRET PRESIDENT!

Oct 9, 2013#338

GasBandit

And hey, the congressional gym is open. Gotta work off that frustration.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...closed-congress-keeps-gym-open-193414593.html

Oct 9, 2013#339

sixpackshaker

We need to see videos of the Fat Cats using the gym.

Oct 9, 2013#340

GasBandit

On the subject of people I've been informed I don't give a shit about,

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ah...-unanimously-passes-bill-allowing-family-memb

Twitter said:

House unanimously passes bill allowing family members of fallen soldiers to get death benefits during the shutdown - @frankthorpNBC

Click to expand...

So there's that. Of course, let's see if it even gets a vote in the senate.

Oct 9, 2013#341

Covar

DC Mayor almost "screw it up" for Democrats by asking the Senate Majority leader to let the District of Columbia use it's locally-raised tax funds to operate the city

NSA Reform Panel not to meet during shutdown because it would be "inappropriate"

Oct 9, 2013#342

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
And hey, the congressional gym is open. Gotta work off that frustration.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...closed-congress-keeps-gym-open-193414593.html

Maybe they'll let me live there if this goes on for so long that I lose my apartment.

EDIT: I'm being dramatic with this stuff; I don't believe the government will be shutdown as to ruin my life or anything. I'm just stressed and pissed off.

Oct 9, 2013#343

PatrThom

Covar said:
NSA Reform Panel not to meet during shutdown because it would be "inappropriate"

Don't forget about how they also declared a moratorium on fulfilling FOIA requests, too. First the broken fax machine, now this.

--Patrick

Oct 9, 2013#344

Anonymous

Oct 9, 2013#345

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
Don't forget about how they also declared a moratorium on fulfilling FOIA requests, too. First the broken fax machine, now this.

--Patrick

What the fuck.

Oct 9, 2013#346

Krisken

Anonymous said:

I saw this and found it funny. If everything with governments could be boiled down to being this simple there wouldn't even be a debate.

Oct 9, 2013#347

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I saw this and found it funny. If everything with governments could be boiled down to being this simple there wouldn't even be a debate.

There really shouldn't be one. Not about this. Something is going to give.

Oct 9, 2013#348

blotsfan

http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-mock-us-over-government-shutdown-064323672.html

...and I'm now agreeing with the Taliban.

Oct 9, 2013#349

Krisken

Fidelity dumps ALL short term US debts.

Now that's kinda scary.

Oct 9, 2013#350

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Fidelity dumps ALL short term US debts.

Now that's kinda scary.

Huh.

That's where my IRA is.

Does that mean I get more money if the nation defaults, I wonder?

Oct 9, 2013#351

Tress

GasBandit said:
Huh.

That's where my IRA is.

Does that mean I get more money if the nation defaults, I wonder?

It means your IRA won't take quite as big a dump if the nation defaults. It will still go to shit, though.

Oct 9, 2013#352

PatrThom

Quotemander Prime said:
What the fuck.

"non-essential services"

--Patrick

Oct 9, 2013#353

Krisken

Tress said:
It means your IRA won't take quite as big a dump if the nation defaults. It will still go to shit, though.

Right, but if the short term debt is being dumped, in order for it to be more attractive interest rates will have to go up. That there is bad for the National Debt. Which is why refusing to raise the debt ceiling is STUPID and counter intuitive.

Oct 10, 2013#354

Espy

NPR did a story with some of the esteemed Tea Party representatives this am, where they talked about how if we default it's "no big deal" and actually might be "better for the country!".

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh....

Oct 10, 2013#355

SpecialKO

Espy said:
NPR did a story with some of the esteemed Tea Party representatives this am, where they talked about how if we default it's "no big deal" and actually might be "better for the country!".

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh....

I think he means that he's got all his Glen Beck gold locked away in his cellar so obviously he's fine (or something).

Oct 10, 2013#356

GasBandit

So much hate... so much.

Oct 10, 2013#357

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
So much hate... so much.

I know, right? Gubbermint shuts down and cops're still running around. It's like you can't get rid of 'em!

--Patrick

Oct 10, 2013#358

GasBandit

The House is looking to pass a short term debt limit increase to avoid default during the shutdown. The white house ain't havin' it.

twitter said:

White House on possible House Republicans proposal for short-term debt limit increase: 'The President has made clear that he will not pay a ransom for Congress doing its job and paying our bills' - @NBCNews

Click to expand...

Ok... if this is a metaphor for a hostage situation, basically the President says "we won't accept the release of ANY hostages until we get the particular hostage we want!"

Whaargarbl.

Oct 10, 2013#359

Covar

Such violent language, what happened to raising the level of civility in our conversation?

Oct 10, 2013#360

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
The House is looking to pass a short term debt limit increase to avoid default during the shutdown. The white house ain't havin' it.

Ok... if this is a metaphor for a hostage situation, basically the President says "we won't accept the release of ANY hostages until we get the particular hostage we want!"

Whaargarbl.

The problem with getting news from twitter is that it's not so much news as sound bites.

At the private meeting with House Democrats on Wednesday, Obama said he would consider a short-term deal to raise the federal borrowing limit, a Democratic lawmaker told CNN.

"Obama warned the House Democrats that if Republicans want to propose a short-term fix and Democrats say no, they would lose the high ground in the argument over which party was being reasonable."

So Obama will accept the short term debt ceiling increase but he will refuse to allow that to be the Republican's compromise.

Oct 10, 2013#361

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
The problem with getting news from twitter is that it's not so much news as sound bites.

At the private meeting with House Democrats on Wednesday, Obama said he would consider a short-term deal to raise the federal borrowing limit, a Democratic lawmaker told CNN.

"Obama warned the House Democrats that if Republicans want to propose a short-term fix and Democrats say no, they would lose the high ground in the argument over which party was being reasonable."

So Obama will accept the short term debt ceiling increase but he will refuse to allow that to be the Republican's compromise.

Well, that's something of a relief then. The NBC website story seems to corroborate the tweet, saying that Obama's insisting the debt limit be raised AND the shutdown ended before he'll negotiate at all, but I hope CNN's got it more correct this time.

Oct 10, 2013#362

Krisken

Covar said:
Such violent language, what happened to raising the level of civility in our conversation?

I can call a suggested course of action stupid without calling the person who suggested it stupid. Just as I'm sure you know the difference.

Oct 10, 2013#363

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I can call a suggested course of action stupid without calling the person who suggested it stupid. Just as I'm sure you know the difference.

That's not what he means, he's talking about how democrats raised such a fuss over using verbiage such as "setting our sights on" and other "targeting" rhetoric so close to a particular shooting, saying that we all needed to elevate the civility of our discourse and back off all the scary gun words.

Oct 10, 2013#364

Covar

Krisken said:
I can call a suggested course of action stupid without calling the person who suggested it stupid. Just as I'm sure you know the difference.

As a general rule I will quote a post I respond to unless it is the one right above mine (or I miss a post during a reply, at which point I will go back and edit as needed).

Oct 10, 2013#365

Krisken

Covar said:
As a general rule I will quote a post I respond to unless it is the one right above mine (or I miss a post during a reply, at which point I will go back and edit as needed).

Gotcha. Sorry for presuming you were talking to me. I'm guessing it was a post from a poster I'm ignoring since PatrThom's post didn't seem all that bad

Oct 10, 2013#366

Covar

Krisken said:
Gotcha. Sorry for presuming you were talking to me. I'm guessing it was a post from a poster I'm ignoring since PatrThom's post didn't seem all that bad

Only if you ignore Gas. I though ignored posts still showed up as having been made, with the content hidden? Is that not the case?

Oct 10, 2013#367

GasBandit

Covar said:
Only if you ignore Gas. I though ignored posts still showed up as having been made, with the content hidden? Is that not the case?

Yeah, he ignores me. From what I hear the ignored posts, while there is a marker for where they fit, are still pretty unobtrusive.

Oct 10, 2013#368

Krisken

Covar said:
Only if you ignore Gas. I though ignored posts still showed up as having been made, with the content hidden? Is that not the case?

Yes, I am.

Nope, it doesn't even tell me he posted. My only indication he posts in a thread is at the bottom of the thread it gives me the option to show ignored content.

Oct 10, 2013#369

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yes, I am.

Nope, it doesn't even tell me he posted. My only indication he posts in a thread is at the bottom of the thread it gives me the option to show ignored content.

Ah, so it's changed.

I'll NEVER STOP REPLYING KRISKEN.

Oct 10, 2013#370

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
I'll NEVER STOP REPLYING KRISKEN.

But will you stop...believing?

Oct 10, 2013#371

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
But will you stop...believing?

I'll hold on to the feeling.

Oct 10, 2013#372

Krisken

I'm sure he'll hold on to that feeling.

Oct 10, 2013#373

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I'm sure he'll hold on to that feeling.

Oct 10, 2013#374

GasBandit

So, John Cornyn (R-TX) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have decided they hate Ted Cruz (R-TX) enough to torpedo the debt limit compromise, announce their intent to work with Democrats to attach a CR rider to the debt limit increase legislation when it arrives in the senate. - One that completely defeats the notion of "compromise" in favor of "just give in to the Democrats already." Wow. I knew Collins has been a RINO for years, but the way Cornyn's been acting lately, he must have decided he's tired of being a Senator. At least for Texas.

Oct 10, 2013#375

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:

That gif actually kind of creeps me out.

Oct 10, 2013#376

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
So, John Cornyn (R-TX) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have decided they hate Ted Cruz (R-TX) enough to torpedo the debt limit compromise, announce their intent to work with Democrats to attach a CR rider to the debt limit increase legislation when it arrives in the senate. - One that completely defeats the notion of "compromise" in favor of "just give in to the Democrats already." Wow. I knew Collins has been a RINO for years, but the way Cornyn's been acting lately, he must have decided he's tired of being a Senator. At least for Texas.

"Compromise" and "Giving into the Democrats" in this case being what the republicans claim to want the government starting back up.

Oct 10, 2013#377

strawman

Obama has supplied a positive response to the idea of extending the shutdown by passing a temporary debt increase.

This means that the shutdown would continue past the debt increase date of the 17th, allowing the US to continue borrowing to pay for ongoing (so-called essential services) expenses the shutdown hasn't affected.

It only extends it an estimated six weeks.

The language being used is tentative, though, and republicans may back down from that offer now that senate democrats and a few republicans are suggesting they may attempt to attach clean appropriations bills to the debt limit increase.

Obama's minion is very deftly avoiding answering questions such as whether this "discussion" was a negotiation, and whether he will negotiate once the debt limit issue is solved, or if he will insist on a passed clean appropriations bill before negotiating, as he has insisted up until now. Obama has a history of saying things, then being sorry he said them and looking for a way out without losing face (ie, red line re Syria). So calling this most recent budge a discussion suggests that he may be looking for a way out.

Of the 500+ congresscritters, about half are forgoing their pay during the shutdown to demonstrate solidarity with those affected by it.

Oct 10, 2013#378

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
"Compromise" and "Giving into the Democrats" in this case being what the republicans claim to want the government starting back up.

If Cornyn and Collins attach the Democrats' CR (which will include obamacare funding), then send it back to the house for reconciliation, it will be DOA, when the debt ceiling crisis could have been delayed another couple months while all the rest of this gets hashed out. That's why it's torpedoing compromise.

I doubt they would be "working with Democrats" or rather the Democrats wouldn't be working with them, if the plan didn't include TACA funding.

Oct 10, 2013#379

blotsfan

stienman said:
Of the 500+ congresscritters, about half are forgoing their pay during the shutdown to demonstrate solidarity with those affected by it.

I saw that a lot of the Congressmen are donating their pay to various charities that help people that are being effected by this. I wonder if they plan to use the donations for a big tax write-off.

Oct 10, 2013#380

Shakey

stienman said:
Obama has a history of saying things, then being sorry he said them and looking for a way out without losing face (ie, red line re Syria). So calling this most recent budge a discussion suggests that he may be looking for a way out.

If he doesn't give in, he's being unreasonable. If he gives in and decides to work with them, it means he's sorry he ever said it and trying not to lose face.

Oct 10, 2013#381

strawman

Of course they will get the tax write off, but the money they save on taxes is vastly less than the money they're donating. While one could say they are recovering some of it, they're still losing the money, and they aren't likely to get it back, though back pay might be given to those affected by the shutdown.

So while there may be some small ulterior motives, I don't think one can easily paint this as a selfish move.[DOUBLEPOST=1381436804,1381436477][/DOUBLEPOST]

Shakey said:
If he doesn't give in, he's being unreasonable. If he gives in and decides to work with them, it means he's sorry he ever said it and trying not to lose face.

I don't think he's in a good position either way. He's backed himself into a spot where he either loses face, or waits the republicans out. However right now he can claim it was never about the debt ceiling, and tell congress to pass that without any riders about the closure or healthcare to keep the economy stable.

If the house passes a debt ceiling raise without riders before the 17th, it would look bad for the democrats to turn it down, or torpedo it by adding riders. But the republicans still hold power over it since it only lasts until the end of November.

Oct 10, 2013#382

Shakey

stienman said:
I don't think he's in a good position either way. He's backed himself into a spot where he either loses face, or waits the republicans out. However right now he can claim it was never about the debt ceiling, and tell congress to pass that without any riders about the closure or healthcare to keep the economy stable.

If the house passes a debt ceiling raise without riders before the 17th, it would look bad for the democrats to turn it down, or torpedo it by adding riders. But the republicans still hold power over it since it only lasts until the end of November.

Why is he losing face? This has always been about making sure the health care law stays funded, and Republicans know they can at least make a stand on it. Saying he's willing to negotiate a bit, and even if he allows some cuts to the budget to get the government going now, it isn't losing face. It's compromise, and it's not a bad thing.

And I should say, same goes for Republicans. Backing away from healthcare isn't losing face or being the weaker party. It's compromise, and it's not a bad thing.

Oct 10, 2013#383

Tiger Tsang

"For the 21st time, Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D) called for House-Senate budget negotiations, which would occur after the government re-opens at status quo levels. For the 21st time, Republicans blocked the request"

Damn obstinate DEMONrats!!

You two are adorable.

Oct 10, 2013#384

Krisken

blotsfan said:
I saw that a lot of the Congressmen are donating their pay to various charities that help people that are being effected by this. I wonder if they plan to use the donations for a big tax write-off.

I don't see why they wouldn't.

Oct 10, 2013#385

GasBandit

Shakey said:
Why is he losing face? This has always been about making sure the health care law stays funded, and Republicans know they can at least make a stand on it. Saying he's willing to negotiate a bit, and even if he allows some cuts to the budget to get the government going now, it isn't losing face. It's compromise, and it's not a bad thing.

And I should say, same goes for Republicans. Backing away from healthcare isn't losing face or being the weaker party. It's compromise, and it's not a bad thing.

Obama's made several public declarations over the last couple weeks that he would refuse to negotiate at all until the Republicans ended the shutdown unconditionally (funding Obamacare and everything else). He phrased it as refusing to "negotiate with a gun held to my head." (There's that violent Republican rhetoric again)

Oct 10, 2013#386

LordRendar

GasBandit said:
The House is looking to pass a short term debt limit increase to avoid default during the shutdown. The white house ain't havin' it.

Ok... if this is a metaphor for a hostage situation, basically the President says "we won't accept the release of ANY hostages until we get the particular hostage we want!"

Whaargarbl.

I think it is more along the lines of "We don't do deals with terrorists"

Oct 10, 2013#387

GasBandit

LordRendar said:
I think it is more along the lines of "We don't do deals with terrorists"

Well, it was (White House Senior Advisor) Dan Pfeiffer who said that, and he wasn't invoking metaphor.

Oct 10, 2013#388

strawman

Tiger Tsang said:
"For the 21st time, Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D) called for House-Senate budget negotiations, which would occur after the government re-opens at status quo levels. For the 21st time, Republicans blocked the request"

Damn obstinate DEMONrats!!

You two are adorable.

This isn't a compromise. This is the democrats saying the same thing they've said all along - they will not negotiate.

Both sides are being obstinate. To portray the replicons as being worse then the duplicrats is disingenuous.

Oct 10, 2013#389

Hailey Knight

blotsfan said:
http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-mock-us-over-government-shutdown-064323672.html

...and I'm now agreeing with the Taliban.

Okay, that's scary. They're saying similar stuff to what a lot of people around here in the DC area have been saying.

Oct 10, 2013#390

Tiger Tsang

stienman said:
This isn't a compromise. This is the democrats saying the same thing they've said all along - they will not negotiate.

Both sides are being obstinate. To portray the replicons as being worse then the duplicrats is disingenuous.

Considering they've been planning on being Obstructionist asshats from day one of the Obama presidency, and how much they conducted 'negotiations' in good faith during the last debt ceiling crisis, yeah, I think you could say one side has been more Snidely Whiplash than the other.

Oct 10, 2013#391

GasBandit

Tiger Tsang said:
Considering they've been planning on being Obstructionist asshats from day one of the Obama presidency, and how much they conducted 'negotiations' in good faith during the last debt ceiling crisis, yeah, I think you could say one side has been more Snidely Whiplash than the other.

Obstructionist wasn't a dirty word until democrats came to power. Previous to that, it was considered a near synonym for patriotism.

Oct 10, 2013#392

Krisken

I admit, I have a hard time not laughing when 'they won't negotiate with us' is being trotted out by the GOP.

Oct 10, 2013#393

Tiger Tsang

Explain how any of Boehner's demands for debt ceiling talks would have had a positive effect for anyone besides some very rich people and corporation's profits.

Oct 10, 2013#394

GasBandit

Tiger Tsang said:
Explain how any of Boehner's demands for debt ceiling talks would have had a positive effect for anyone besides some very rich people and corporation's profits.

That list is 2 weeks old (pre-shutdown) and probably meant as a "sticker price." It's their wishlist, so they have stuff to give up in negotiations.

But let's have some fun and go down the list:

A one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act

Self explanatory. If they can't get rid of it entirely, a one year delay on the individual mandate is a fair middle ground, seeing as how the President has granted a 1 year delay on the business mandate (along with thousands of waivers for his favorite friends)

Instructions for tax reform, under Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget

A balanced budget? SHOCK AND DISMAY

Keystone XL Pipeline construction

Should have been built years ago. It'd do much to alleviate some of our energy prices, and it's not like our not buying it doesn't mean the oil doesn't get pumped and sold - just to China instead of the US.

An overhaul of Dodd-Frank regulations

Dodd-Frank is an abomination that only isn't discussed much because, as horrid as it is, everything else lately dwarfs it.

More offshore oil drilling

Oil prices are de facto inflation, and oil production has been strangled since Obama came to office. It needs to happen. Unless you think lower gas prices somehow only benefit the rich (hint: no)

Means testing Medicare

Something has to be done with it, it's going bankrupt, especially now that TACA's financial shell game is raiding its larders so that TACA comes out looking like it costs under a trillion dollars. Remember "double dipping?" Coming home to roost.

Suspending the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to regulate carbon emissions

The carbon dioxide witch hunt is one of the great businesskillers of modern times. Let's talk about Mercury, Lead, Arsenic and other real pollutants. CO2 is a moneymaking scam.

Repeal of the Public Health Trust Fund

This one is new on me - probably a sacrificial lamb they can throw out in negotiations. Haven't heard of them making a big deal about it (other than of course, it being part of TACA to begin with, the whole of which they want done away with).

So, all in all, I don't see how this is aimed mostly at the very rich. If anything, it's a pretty good start on jumpstarting the job market back to health.

Oct 10, 2013#395

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
That list is 2 weeks old (pre-shutdown) and probably meant as a "sticker price." It's their wishlist, so they have stuff to give up in negotiations.

But let's have some fun and go down the list:

A one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act

Self explanatory. If they can't get rid of it entirely, a one year delay on the individual mandate is a fair middle ground, seeing as how the President has granted a 1 year delay on the business mandate (along with thousands of waivers for his favorite friends)

Citation on the favorite friend waivers?

And no it's not a fair middle ground. The business mandate was pushed back a year because the infrastructure for the business mandate wasn't ready. Give me one reason why the individual mandate should also be pushed back despite the fact that the infrastructure for it is already in place and chugging along.

Instructions for tax reform, under Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget

A balanced budget? SHOCK AND DISMAY

Yeah lord knows that the way I always balance my budget is to quit my job. Paul Ryan's budget's have always been on shaky ground requiring multiple years of growth at a pace that far exceeds growth during the clinton administration.

Keystone XL Pipeline construction

Should have been built years ago. It'd do much to alleviate some of our energy prices, and it's not like our not buying it doesn't mean the oil doesn't get pumped and sold - just to China instead of the US.

If it gets sold to China it's still lowering the price of oil the exact same amount. Oil is a fungible good. Only difference is that we would be putting our aquifer at risk by pumping that junk into our country.

An overhaul of Dodd-Frank regulations

Dodd-Frank is an abomination that only isn't discussed much because, as horrid as it is, everything else lately dwarfs it.

Come on do you seriously oppose banking regulation? Unregulated banks nearly destroyed the entire economy and you want to take away the only legislation that even tries to reign them in?

More offshore oil drilling

Oil prices are de facto inflation, and oil production has been strangled since Obama came to office. It needs to happen. Unless you think lower gas prices somehow only benefit the rich (hint: no)

Yeah no it hasn't.

Means testing Medicare

Something has to be done with it, it's going bankrupt, especially now that TACA's financial shell game is raiding its larders so that TACA comes out looking like it costs under a trillion dollars. Remember "double dipping?" Coming home to roost.

Honestly I would love to see where exactly they draw the lines with means testing medicare before I say it's a bad idea.

Suspending the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to regulate carbon emissions

The carbon dioxide witch hunt is one of the great businesskillers of modern times. Let's talk about Mercury, Lead, Arsenic and other real pollutants. CO2 is a moneymaking scam.

Repeal of the Public Health Trust Fund

This one is new on me - probably a sacrificial lamb they can throw out in negotiations. Haven't heard of them making a big deal about it (other than of course, it being part of TACA to begin with, the whole of which they want done away with).

So, all in all, I don't see how this is aimed mostly at the very rich. If anything, it's a pretty good start on jumpstarting the job market back to health.

All of those ideas are atrocious for the job market. Probably why the Republicans have proposed them.

Oct 10, 2013#396

Shakey

GasBandit said:
Obama's made several public declarations over the last couple weeks that he would refuse to negotiate at all until the Republicans ended the shutdown unconditionally (funding Obamacare and everything else). He phrased it as refusing to "negotiate with a gun held to my head." (There's that violent Republican rhetoric again)

So? Does that mean he can't compromise? Or change his mind? Why does that have to be a negative thing?

Oct 10, 2013#397

GasBandit

Shakey said:
So? Does that mean he can't compromise? Or change his mind? Why does that have to be a negative thing?

Because it'd make him look weak and foolish, which he apparently hates more than anything. It's what he should do, but like the "red line" comment, he painted himself into a corner. Plus, I can't really blame him for thinking the Republicans would flinch before the Democrats. Frankly I'm surprised they've stuck to their guns this long.

Dubyamn said:
Citation on the favorite friend waivers?

Here, and GE gets waivers from both TACA and the EPA.

And no it's not a fair middle ground. The business mandate was pushed back a year because the infrastructure for the business mandate wasn't ready. Give me one reason why the individual mandate should also be pushed back despite the fact that the infrastructure for it is already in place and chugging along.

Well, obviously the infrastructure for everything still needs work. But part of the act's purported balancing act was "if you have coverage you like, you can keep it," meaning employer provided coverage, obviously. But with the business mandate to provide coverage moved back, many are finding it even more enticing simply to drop coverage and save the money. But the individual mandate still requires individuals to purchase insurance of some sort, so really it becomes a cattleprod to herd more people through the exchanges.

Yeah lord knows that the way I always balance my budget is to quit my job. Paul Ryan's budget's have always been on shaky ground requiring multiple years of growth at a pace that far exceeds growth during the clinton administration.

That's a disingenuous characterization of the Ryan budget.

If it gets sold to China it's still lowering the price of oil the exact same amount. Oil is a fungible good. Only difference is that we would be putting our aquifer at risk by pumping that junk into our country.

Poppycock. The pipeline isn't IN the aquifer, and you'd prefer the risk of putting the oil in tankers? Because that doesn't seem any safer. China is on a mad expansion boom, they're buying all the resources (and in some cases, production facilities outright) they can get their hands on. If you think that bodes well for the US economy... you're mistaken.

Come on do you seriously oppose banking regulation? Unregulated banks nearly destroyed the entire economy and you want to take away the only legislation that even tries to reign them in?

Dodd-Frank was ostensibly meant to address the whole "too big to fail" issue which led to the supposed requirement to hurriedly fork over the bailout cash. Instead, it enshrines it into perpetuity, via the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and authorizes the government to de facto seize any institution it deems critical. Meanwhile it also does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yeah no it hasn't.

Pardon me, OFFSHORE production has, especially after the Deepwater Horizon incident gave an excuse to curtail it, in the name of environmentalism. Pity that hasn't stopped other nations from stepping up their drilling in the gulf to fill the void.

All of those ideas are atrocious for the job market. Probably why the Republicans have proposed them.

Yes, because if there's one thing Republicans hate, it's businesses and jobs. Why, look at the unemployment rate during the Bush years, at a staggering 5% and change!

Oct 10, 2013#398

Shakey

GasBandit said:
Because it'd make him look weak and foolish.

This is the attitude that bothers me the most about our current political situation. Working with the other side and trying to find a middle ground through compromise isn't looking foolish or weak. It's being an adult.

Oct 10, 2013#399

PatrThom

Shakey said:
Working with the other side and trying to find a middle ground through compromise isn't looking foolish or weak. It's being an adult.

Yes, but that is not what movies and television tell us. They say that crises are solved by SPARKING YOUR TESTICLES TOGETHER TO IGNITE THE FLAMES OF REBELLION.

--Patrick

Oct 10, 2013#400

Krisken

Superb, PatrThom. If I could give more ratings, I would.

Oct 11, 2013#401

PatrThom

Krisken said:
Superb, PatrThom. If I could give more ratings, I would.

In hindsight, it may be clever, but it's not the presidential image I really wanted in my head.

--Patrick

Oct 11, 2013#402

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Here, and GE gets waivers from both TACA and the EPA.

And of course if they hadn't granted those waivers (none of which makes it so that a company is immune) you would of course be hemming and hawing over how Obamacare hurt those same groups. The waivers were given out to smooth over the edges of the healthcare law and make the implementation better.

Well, obviously the infrastructure for everything still needs work. But part of the act's purported balancing act was "if you have coverage you like, you can keep it," meaning employer provided coverage, obviously. But with the business mandate to provide coverage moved back, many are finding it even more enticing simply to drop coverage and save the money. But the individual mandate still requires individuals to purchase insurance of some sort, so really it becomes a cattleprod to herd more people through the exchanges.

It is unfortunate that companies decided to betray their personal like they have. But that is unfortunately unavoidable.

But the fact remains that the infrastructure is there for the individual mandate but not for the business mandate and I see no reason why a delay in one that isn't ready should delay the one that is ready to go.

That's a disingenuous characterization of the Ryan budget.

I do have to admit that I haven't paid attention to the Ryan budget since he refused to defend it in anyway during the 2012 campaign and resorted to outright lying about it.

Poppycock. The pipeline isn't IN the aquifer, and you'd prefer the risk of putting the oil in tankers? Because that doesn't seem any safer. China is on a mad expansion boom, they're buying all the resources (and in some cases, production facilities outright) they can get their hands on. If you think that bodes well for the US economy... you're mistaken.

If I had my way that junk would stay in the fucking ground till we could pump it up safely without it spilling everywhere. As it is I'll have to content myself with keeping it out of my backyard. If Canada insists on selling it to China and putting it all on tankers that's their call to make.

Dodd-Frank was ostensibly meant to address the whole "too big to fail" issue which led to the supposed requirement to hurriedly fork over the bailout cash. Instead, it enshrines it into perpetuity, via the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and authorizes the government to de facto seize any institution it deems critical. Meanwhile it also does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pretty sure the government always had the power to seize any institution it deemed critical. I remember hearing and NPR story about a federal siezure and winding down of a bank.

Pardon me, OFFSHORE production has, especially after the Deepwater Horizon incident gave an excuse to curtail it, in the name of environmentalism. Pity that hasn't stopped other nations from stepping up their drilling in the gulf to fill the void.

Going to need a citation on that claim cause all I could find is the WSJ saying that offshore oil drilling is experiencing a boom right now.

Today, three years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling is booming in the Gulf of Mexico, driven by the continued high price of oil, a series of massive new fields discovered with the help of improved exploration technology, and the growing difficulty of finding major new oil fields abroad.

Yes, because if there's one thing Republicans hate, it's businesses and jobs. Why, look at the unemployment rate during the Bush years, at a staggering 5% and change!

Yeah he holds no responsibility for the unemployment rate shooting the month after he left office.

of course that's if I even conceed that this republican party is the same republican party of the Bush years. Those guys loved their deficits and actually tried to appear like people with real empathy.

Oct 11, 2013#403

Dave

Republicans saying democrats refuse to compromise is like a bully getting pissed when another kid fights back and gives him a bloody nose. Suck it up and admit defeat, you whining little bitches.

Oct 11, 2013#404

Covar

Dave said:
Democrats saying republicans refuse to compromise is like a bully getting pissed when another kid fights back and gives him a bloody nose. Suck it up and admit defeat, you whining little bitches.

Wow, amazing how it still works when you reverse it.

Oct 11, 2013#405

strawman

Dave said:
you whining little bitches.

Perhaps you need a break...

Oct 11, 2013#406

Dave

Covar said:
Wow, amazing how it still works when you reverse it.

It's not the democrats in this case. The senate and house worked out something a month ago and then the republicans in the house changed their minds and closed down the government, which was their plan all along. The democrats have if anything, capitulated too much with the ideologues in the house and given too much away for no good reason other than to placate the children throwing the tantrums.[DOUBLEPOST=1381504723,1381504617][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
Perhaps you need a break...

Nah, I'm just sick of the fight and the fact that there are still people who think this is the democrat's fault when it's patently obvious that it's always been this obstructionist house, specifically the tea party morons who care more about themselves than the country.

Oct 11, 2013#407

Charlie Don't Surf

Pretty much all the metaphors for this situation are worthless. The bottom line is that if you think both sides are to blame for this, you're either not paying attention or being paid handsomely by the Koch Brothers.

Oct 11, 2013#408

Covar

Dave said:
It's not the democrats in this case.

Bolded for emphasis.

Oct 11, 2013#409

Dave

Covar said:
Bolded for emphasis.

Now THAT I'll give you. But since this is the case the thread and conversation is about...

Oct 11, 2013#410

strawman

It's amazing how closed minded you are about this, Dave. I'm sorry to see that.

Oct 11, 2013#411

Dave

stienman said:
It's amazing how closed minded you are about this, Dave. I'm sorry to see that.

Closed minded? It's not open minded to ignore the facts of the situation to more closely align with your political beliefs (which is what I'm saying you are doing). It's a fact that a deal had been reached and that republicans are doing everything they can to obstruct Obama at every turn. They've, in fact, stated this on multiple occasions. I'm sorry to see that you are allowing yourself to believe such blatant and obvious falsehoods as truth. This congress has done absolutely nothing of note because of partisan bickering and it's always the democrats who are forced to give ground. So the one time when they don't, the republicans throw a hissy fit and shut down the government. Tough noogies.

Oct 11, 2013#412

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
And of course if they hadn't granted those waivers (none of which makes it so that a company is immune) you would of course be hemming and hawing over how Obamacare hurt those same groups.

Naturally I would. The waivers are just the proponents admitting the shortcomings as well.

It is unfortunate that companies decided to betray their personal like they have. But that is unfortunately unavoidable.

A business has to stay in business. These people would be a lot worse off if the company that employs them ran itself into bankruptcy.

But the fact remains that the infrastructure is there for the individual mandate but not for the business mandate and I see no reason why a delay in one that isn't ready should delay the one that is ready to go.

It belies the falsehood of the "if you like what you have you can keep it" line that was largely used to mitigate objection to TACA during its crafting/enacting in the first place. Changing the deal after it's signed is chicanery - chicanery that might have made the difference in the razor-slim, dead-of-night-on-christmas-eve vote that passed it in the senate.

If I had my way that junk would stay in the fucking ground till we could pump it up safely without it spilling everywhere. As it is I'll have to content myself with keeping it out of my backyard. If Canada insists on selling it to China and putting it all on tankers that's their call to make.

So, if you had your way, modern civilization would revert to horse-and-buggy agrarianism and food riots would tear every major metropolitan area to shreds. And Canada's tankers to China do pass through water/past shorelines we share with them.

Pretty sure the government always had the power to seize any institution it deemed critical. I remember hearing and NPR story about a federal siezure and winding down of a bank.

Not to this degree, and not for these reasons. It's less about winding down and more about flat out nationalization. And frankly, any such seizures should disconcert anyone who accepts the concept of private property.

Going to need a citation on that claim cause all I could find is the WSJ saying that offshore oil drilling is experiencing a boom right now.

The WSJ Says oil production in general is booming, which it is as Bush-era approved projects start to bear fruit, and most of the increase in oil production is on private land instead of federal or offshore - demand must be met and always grows, hence why both production and prices are up. Here's some interesting reading. Don't get me wrong, ALL oil exploration in the gulf hasn't stopped, but other countries are doing it to a greater degree, compared to the US.

Yeah he holds no responsibility for the unemployment rate shooting the month after he left office.

Some, assuredly, but not as much as he gets blamed for. The much more pertinent change of power that preceded the crash would be the 2006 midterms. The job losses came from the crash that came from the financial crisis that came from the decade plus of social engineering of the indigent into homeownership - which Bush warned and railed against several times, causing Barney Frank to, naturally, call him a racist and a poor-hater.

of course that's if I even conceed that this republican party is the same republican party of the Bush years. Those guys loved their deficits and actually tried to appear like people with real empathy.

Oh, I think the majority of the current republican party loves deficits, too. And McConnell, Cornyn, McCain and the rest are just as eager for Cruz and Lee to be found twitching in a ditch as any Democrat you could name.

Oct 11, 2013#413

strawman

What deal? If it wasn't made into a bill and passed in both, then it wasn't ever "reached"

And yes, I do believe you're ignoring recent history. Obama and the democrats have never negotiated on the healthcare bill or spending cuts, except when under threat of shutdown. That is the only time they've budged, and each time it's been far less than what's been needed.

Now they're saying they won't negotiate until after, but the reality is that once the current crisis is over they'll go back to the old line of not negotiating when not under threat of cutoff.

They have been obstructing real movement since the house came under control of the republicans, and both sides know that the democrats will never, ever reach a bi-partisan deal unless they are bludgeoned with it.

They will not talk. They will not discuss. They will not negotiate.

Every time they open their mouth they say they want to work together, but they don't.

They are still acting as though they control the government. Well, they should know by now what they don't, and if they want to work together we can move forward, but if they refuse to fix bills and spending with bi-partisan compromises, then they'll get exactly nothing.

You can blame one party or the other all you want, but it takes two to tango. You may find it politically expedient to believe one party is on the dance floor with the hand out, but you should listen to what they're saying. If you do you'll find both on the edge with their arms folded, and neither will come to the floor without the other party giving something up.

The democrats are as much to blame as the republicans.

To deny that is arrogance.

Oct 11, 2013#414

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Naturally I would. The waivers are just the proponents admitting the shortcomings as well.

Look ultimately there is no way that any law can be perfect I don't think waivers to make the transition smooth are really a shortcoming.

A business has to stay in business. These people would be a lot worse off if the company that employs them ran itself into bankruptcy.

It belies the falsehood of the "if you like what you have you can keep it" line that was largely used to mitigate objection to TACA during its crafting/enacting in the first place. Changing the deal after it's signed is chicanery - chicanery that might have made the difference in the razor-slim, dead-of-night-on-christmas-eve vote that passed it in the senate.

It might have changed the vote it might not have. Either way it's not changing the deal it's acknowledging that part of the law isn't ready for prime time.

Should they have gone forward with the business mandate when the infrastructure wasn't there for it?

So, if you had your way, modern civilization would revert to horse-and-buggy agrarianism and food riots would tear every major metropolitan area to shreds. And Canada's tankers to China do pass through water/past shorelines we share with them.

Tar sands oil isn't the difference between modern civilization and horse and buggy agrarianism. Get your head out of your ass.

Not to this degree, and not for these reasons. It's less about winding down and more about flat out nationalization. And frankly, any such seizures should disconcert anyone who accepts the concept of private property.

Why? Banks signed agreements when they were formed that the government could step in and wind them down if they started going critical.

Why would that worry anybody besides banks who signed the agreements?

The WSJ Says oil production in general is booming, which it is as Bush-era approved projects start to bear fruit, and most of the increase in oil production is on private land instead of federal or offshore - demand must be met and always grows, hence why both production and prices are up. Here's some interesting reading. Don't get me wrong, ALL oil exploration in the gulf hasn't stopped, but other countries are doing it to a greater degree, compared to the US.

Today, three years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling is booming in the Gulf of Mexico, driven by the continued high price of oil, a series of massive new fields discovered with the help of improved exploration technology, and the growing difficulty of finding major new oil fields abroad.

Emphasis added.

Citation needed on your allegation that Obama has strangled the offshore oil drilling.

Some, assuredly, but not as much as he gets blamed for. The much more pertinent change of power that preceded the crash would be the 2006 midterms. The job losses came from the crash that came from the financial crisis that came from the decade plus of social engineering of the indigent into homeownership - which Bush warned and railed against several times, causing Barney Frank to, naturally, call him a racist and a poor-hater.

Bush actually celebrated and supercharged the housing crisis. Hell the increase in homeownership was one of his proudest achievements.

Also it was his guys who actively fought back against anybody trying to regulate the bundling and selling off of sub prime mortgages which was at the heart of the credit crisis.

Oct 11, 2013#415

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
Look ultimately there is no way that any law can be perfect I don't think waivers to make the transition smooth are really a shortcoming.
It might have changed the vote it might not have. Either way it's not changing the deal it's acknowledging that part of the law isn't ready for prime time.

Should they have gone forward with the business mandate when the infrastructure wasn't there for it?

Then why is a one year delay on the individual mandate to "make the transition smoother" considered the same as the business mandate? It's simply political - delaying the business mandate without delaying the individual mandate is acceptable to them because it chases more people to the exchanges who otherwise wouldn't use them, thus setting the individual mandate's barbed hook even deeper and more quickly in, so it's that much harder to extricate when the system breaks down. If ease of transition was really paramount, they would have delayed both mandates. As it stands, it was just a political consideration and maneuvering tactic.

Tar sands oil isn't the difference between modern civilization and horse and buggy agrarianism. Get your head out of your ass.

Oh, and here I thought we were being so chummy and civil. When you said you'd rather they "leave that stuff in the ground" I thought you were talking about oil in general. You can understand how I took you to mean that, what with you being a raving delusional leftist. See, I can add an unhelpful barb at the end of my points, too.

Why? Banks signed agreements when they were formed that the government could step in and wind them down if they started going critical.

Why would that worry anybody besides banks who signed the agreements?

Did the banks have a choice? The choice is sign the agreement or don't get to be a bank. Furthermore, as I said, it's not about "winding down," it's about nationalization. This isn't just the FDIC we're talking about here, this is more akin to the government taking ownership of GM and making sure their friends got paid and anyone else (even those with secured shares) can just eat the loss.

Today, three years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling is booming in the Gulf of Mexico, driven by the continued high price of oil, a series of massive new fields discovered with the help of improved exploration technology, and the growing difficulty of finding major new oil fields abroad.

Emphasis added.

You can emphasize it all you want, it doesn't conflict with what I said - you're assuming the gulf drilling is primarily American.

Citation needed on your allegation that Obama has strangled the offshore oil drilling.

Will you accept the Huffington Post?

Bush actually celebrated and supercharged the housing crisis. Hell the increase in homeownership was one of his proudest achievements.

Also it was his guys who actively fought back against anybody trying to regulate the bundling and selling off of sub prime mortgages which was at the heart of the credit crisis.

Just attacking the subprime mortgage bundling without addressing the underlying reason it existed - that democrat social policy required banks to find ways to give more home loans to those completely unequipped to pay for them - is selective intellectual dishonesty. If you hold a gun to a man's head and demand he push someone off a cliff, you can't then accuse him of cold blooded murder. Bush himself addressed the legislature many times over his entire time as president on attempting to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Democrats and especially Barney Frank would not tolerate any talk of reform, claiming Republicans were fearmongering a crisis that didn't exist just as a pretext to racial bigotry against poorer demographics getting home loans.

Oct 11, 2013#416

Tiger Tsang

As regards to the Keystone Pipeline

Other than a handfull of refinery jobs in Texas, and perhaps some maintenance crews . . . No, it really won't have any benefits for America.

Oct 11, 2013#417

General Specific

Dave said:
Closed minded? It's not open minded to ignore the facts of the situation to more closely align with your political beliefs (which is what I'm saying you are doing). It's a fact that a deal had been reached and that republicans are doing everything they can to obstruct Obama at every turn. They've, in fact, stated this on multiple occasions. I'm sorry to see that you are allowing yourself to believe such blatant and obvious falsehoods as truth. This congress has done absolutely nothing of note because of partisan bickering and it's always the democrats who are forced to give ground. So the one time when they don't, the republicans throw a hissy fit and shut down the government. Tough noogies.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown

Oct 12, 2013#418

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
Then why is a one year delay on the individual mandate to "make the transition smoother" considered the same as the business mandate? It's simply political - delaying the business mandate without delaying the individual mandate is acceptable to them because it chases more people to the exchanges who otherwise wouldn't use them, thus setting the individual mandate's barbed hook even deeper and more quickly in, so it's that much harder to extricate when the system breaks down. If ease of transition was really paramount, they would have delayed both mandates. As it stands, it was just a political consideration and maneuvering tactic.

Because a one year delay in the individual mandate wouldn't make anything smoother. It would be one more year of the GOP chumming the waters, outright lying to people and frustrating Obamacare anyway they could.

Oh, and here I thought we were being so chummy and civil. When you said you'd rather they "leave that stuff in the ground" I thought you were talking about oil in general. You can understand how I took you to mean that, what with you being a raving delusional leftist. See, I can add an unhelpful barb at the end of my points, too.

I really don't see how you could when we were distinctly talking about tar sands oil. But my opinion is that Tar sands oil should just be left in the ground until we need it as a last resort.

Did the banks have a choice? The choice is sign the agreement or don't get to be a bank. Furthermore, as I said, it's not about "winding down," it's about nationalization. This isn't just the FDIC we're talking about here, this is more akin to the government taking ownership of GM and making sure their friends got paid and anyone else (even those with secured shares) can just eat the loss.

The banks acted irresponsibly and nearly destroyed the economy. You don't just remove the regulations on them 4 years after that. If Boehner was proposing better regulation to replace Dodd Frank then yeah I would say go for it. But he isn't and would probably like to just go back to the days before Dodd Frank.

You can emphasize it all you want, it doesn't conflict with what I said - you're assuming the gulf drilling is primarily American.

Will you accept the Huffington Post?

I do love HuffPo. Of course a study or something would be better than an article from 2010 since one from 2011 clearly contradicts it.

Just attacking the subprime mortgage bundling without addressing the underlying reason it existed - that democrat social policy required banks to find ways to give more home loans to those completely unequipped to pay for them - is selective intellectual dishonesty. If you hold a gun to a man's head and demand he push someone off a cliff, you can't then accuse him of cold blooded murder. Bush himself addressed the legislature many times over his entire time as president on attempting to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Democrats and especially Barney Frank would not tolerate any talk of reform, claiming Republicans were fearmongering a crisis that didn't exist just as a pretext to racial bigotry against poorer demographics getting home loans.

Except the social policy wasn't at all the reason why the subprime crisis hit as hard as it did. The problem was the bundling of the sub prime loans. which allowed bankers to make billions off selling the loans off to other investors in a completely unregulated marketplace. Often times those bundles that they sold were AAA rated despite the fact that they were garbage loans that were set up to be paid off early through a refinance.

I suggest you read "All the Devils are Here" it's a book on the financial crisis from the creation of these mortgage bundles to the blow up with awesome stuff about all the movers and shakers who made the financial house of cards that fell down.

Oct 12, 2013#419

Covar

Banks trying to make something worthwhile out of the terrible sub prime loans they wee forced to make due to the democrats social policy forced upon them, and you say that being forced to make such terrible loans wasn't the problem?

Congratulations you're making the same argument as those that claim the civil war wasn't about slavery.

Oct 12, 2013#420

SpecialKO

Covar said:
Banks trying to make something worthwhile out of the terrible sub prime loans they wee forced to make due to the democrats social policy forced upon them, and you say that being forced to make such terrible loans wasn't the problem?

Congratulations you're making the same argument as those that claim the civil war wasn't about slavery.

Actually, while the FCIC identified the mortgages themselves as a proximate cause, they also concluded that mortgage lenders were assuming risk far above and beyond what they needed to, and that the bundling of the loans into AAA-rated financial instruments by banks should never have been allowed to pass sight unseen and greatly exacerbated the financial effect of the crisis.

It's always more complicated.

Oct 12, 2013#421

strawman

SpecialKO said:
It's always more complicated.

This is a valid response to every post in this entire thread.

Oct 12, 2013#422

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
This is a valid response to every post in this entire thread.

not the part where this crisis is wholly orchestrated by the Congressional Republicans. that's very simple.

Oct 12, 2013#423

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
not the part where this crisis is wholly orchestrated by the Congressional Republicans. that's very simple.

Yes and no. I agree that we've gotten to this precise point due to specific actions by Congressional Republicans (the specific tying of the defunding of the ACA movement via parliamentary procedure to the separate federal operations budget as a way of doing an end-run around actual voting procedure), but there is validity in the criticism that Democrats are specifically playing hardball as a response. Whether they should or not is a matter of opinion (many of us clearly think they should, as a matter of principle and not encouraging the kind of behavior the House GOP is favoring), but that they are is undeniable.

The House GOP decision to go nuclear, as it were, can also be clearly tied to the fact that the ACA was functionally passed along completely partisan lines due to temporary Democrat control of all three decision-making authorities (House, Senate, WH). The popular GOP talking point that there was no negotiation is completely untrue (the GOP was initially deeply involved in the bill development process until direction came from on high to take a partisan counter stance), but it is still very much within the rights of Representatives to change their minds for whatever reason they wish, partisan or otherwise. This partisan-ness is also why in the 3.5 years since the bill originally passed both houses and was signed into law, the GOP has been satisfied with voting 40 times to repeal the law without negotiation and the Democrats have been satisfied with sitting back on their heels without trying to dig into what can be fixed to address criticisms and critical flaws.

So while the GOP is very clearly to blame for our current specific circumstances, the polarization that both sides have been contributing to over the last few years made for an atmosphere that was very favorable for this kind of action. I'm not saying that things would necessarily have been different if Democrats had made a greater effort to reach out while GOP members were playing the repeal game to stoke the home fires of their campaign coffers, but I don't think it's especially valid to say Congressional Democrats don't bear any blame.

Oct 12, 2013#424

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
Yes and no. I agree that we've gotten to this precise point due to specific actions by Congressional Republicans (the specific tying of the defunding of the ACA movement via parliamentary procedure to the separate federal operations budget as a way of doing an end-run around actual voting procedure), but there is validity in the criticism that Democrats are specifically playing hardball as a response. Whether they should or not is a matter of opinion (many of us clearly think they should, as a matter of principle and not encouraging the kind of behavior the House GOP is favoring), but that they are is undeniable.

The House GOP decision to go nuclear, as it were, can also be clearly tied to the fact that the ACA was functionally passed along completely partisan lines due to temporary Democrat control of all three decision-making authorities (House, Senate, WH). The popular GOP talking point that there was no negotiation is completely untrue (the GOP was initially deeply involved in the bill development process until direction came from on high to take a partisan counter stance), but it is still very much within the rights of Representatives to change their minds for whatever reason they wish, partisan or otherwise. This partisan-ness is also why in the 3.5 years since the bill originally passed both houses and was signed into law, the GOP has been satisfied with voting 40 times to repeal the law without negotiation and the Democrats have been satisfied with sitting back on their heels without trying to dig into what can be fixed to address criticisms and critical flaws.

So while the GOP is very clearly to blame for our current specific circumstances, the polarization that both sides have been contributing to over the last few years made for an atmosphere that was very favorable for this kind of action. I'm not saying that things would necessarily have been different if Democrats had made a greater effort to reach out while GOP members were playing the repeal game to stoke the home fires of their campaign coffers, but I don't think it's especially valid to say Congressional Democrats don't bear any blame.

I disagree!

Oct 12, 2013#425

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I disagree!

Oct 12, 2013#426

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I disagree!

Oct 12, 2013#427

PatrThom

For those who haven't heard:

A MI-based company reaches out to lend a helping hand through some hard times.

It's not a joke.

--Patrick

Oct 13, 2013#428

Charlie Don't Surf

should be for all congress, so they can go fuck themselves

Oct 13, 2013#429

jwhouk

Shot was there, he had to take it.

Oct 13, 2013#430

Charlie Don't Surf

i do really mean this, but it is kind of telling that despite us having really wildly different ends of the spectrum, it is a little nice that we both really fucking hate almost everyone in congress

Oct 13, 2013#431

PatrThom

Charlie Don't Surf said:
i do really mean this, but it is kind of telling that despite us having really wildly different ends of the spectrum, it is a little nice that we both really fucking hate almost everyone in congress

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
...or I will at least cheer him on.

--Patrick

Oct 13, 2013#432

PatrThom

This article makes me curious enough that I want to investigate History and test the validity of the claims.

The maths that saw the US shutdown coming

(FWIW, I found the ideas of Hari Seldon very interesting, too)

--Patrick

Oct 13, 2013#433

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
This article makes me curious enough that I want to investigate History and test the validity of the claims.

The maths that saw the US shutdown coming

Interesting. It reminds me of some half-formed ideas I've had in the past about times of turmoil coinciding with lower class oversaturation, but obviously this guy has, literally, done all the math. So basically, the valve we need to release steam from this pressure cooker is another massive world war with millions of casualties lest the government collapse

In seriousness, though, I also am intrigued with what he has to say about existing forms of democracy not being able to keep up with political demand now that society is interconnected and networked in real time. He says decentralization is required, as distributed systems are better able to handle the fluidity with a better responsiveness that people have come to expect from everything now. Well, I'm all for decentralization. One can have TOO much direct democracy, however. A panicked electorate, if plugged in to the democracytron in real time, can turn a whole nation to a bad idea through knee jerk reaction. It even happens now, under a Republic.

Oct 13, 2013#434

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
A panicked electorate, if plugged in to the democracytron in real time, can turn a whole nation to a bad idea through knee jerk reaction. It even happens now, under a Republic.

You can already watch this happen on Wall Street. Computers which are plugged into The Market at hundreds of times the speed of "real time" fall into and out of these bad ideas faster than the eye can see.

--Patrick

Oct 13, 2013#435

Tiger Tsang

Oh just to stir the pot a bit more.

Oct 13, 2013#436

Krisken

I expect nothing less.

Oct 13, 2013#437

PatrThom

Tiger Tsang said:
Oh just to stir the pot a bit more.

Yah, I heard about that. Afraid I can't follow my way through all the doubletalk, but lotsa people certainly don't seem terribly happy about it.

--Patrick

Oct 13, 2013#438

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
This article makes me curious enough that I want to investigate History and test the validity of the claims.

The maths that saw the US shutdown coming

(FWIW, I found the ideas of Hari Seldon very interesting, too)

--Patrick

I've been saying for years that we're on the same track as the Roman Empire and the British Empire in terms of overestimating our survivability as the biggest dog on the block.

I too, loved the Foundation series and found that Hari Seldon's ideas aren't that unthinkable if one has a good enough understanding of psychology, economics, politics and history.

Oct 14, 2013#439

AshburnerX

Bowielee said:
I've been saying for years that we're on the same track as the Roman Empire and the British Empire in terms of overestimating our survivability as the biggest dog on the block.

I too, loved the Foundation series and found that Hari Seldon's ideas aren't that unthinkable if one has a good enough understanding of psychology, economics, politics and history.

I think the thing is... who would be the next big dog? I don't see any nation standing up to the US militarily. Economically? China could if it survives the eventually revolution it'll take to oust the communists, but that's still undecided. I suppose it could end up like most cyber punk fiction and end up with the corporations in charge.

Really though, what -I- am more interested in is what we're going to do once it becomes possible to automate service industry jobs cheaply and effectively. We're quickly reaching the point where it's entirely possible that we'll have vast swaths of people we simply don't -need- to work.

Oct 14, 2013#440

Terrik

AshburnerX said:
I think the thing is... who would be the next big dog? I don't see any nation standing up to the US militarily. Economically? China could if it survives the eventually revolution it'll take to oust the communists, but that's still undecided. I suppose it could end up like most cyber punk fiction and end up with the corporations in charge.

Really though, what -I- am more interested in is what we're going to do once it becomes possible to automate service industry jobs cheaply and effectively. We're quickly reaching the point where it's entirely possible that we'll have vast swaths of people we simply don't -need- to work.

Assuming there is a revolution. Don't make the mistake of taking protests or dissatisfaction with the Chinese government as a sign that people want it overthrown.

As to the second part of your post...well I suppose we'll have to see what the unions say.

Oct 14, 2013#441

AshburnerX

Terrik said:
Assuming there is a revolution. Don't make the mistake of taking protests or dissatisfaction with the Chinese government as a sign that people want it overthrown.

Don't kid yourself. There WILL be a point when ether the government of China is going to have to stop being so authoritarian AND communist, especially if they want to grow their economy into something that does more than export cheap products for first world nations. The only question is whether this will be a natural evolution of the ruling party (and thus a peaceful change) or something else.

China's going to change. We're just not sure WHAT it's going to change into or how it'll happen.

Oct 14, 2013#442

Dave

PatrThom said:
Yah, I heard about that. Afraid I can't follow my way through all the doubletalk, but lotsa people certainly don't seem terribly happy about it.

--Patrick

It means that the republicans changed the rules so that only boehner and whomever he appoints can reopen the government, even though up until October 1, 2013 it was the privilege of ANY house member to start the motions to do so. Those of you who are saying it's the democrats fault for this? Your points have become invalid as this is concrete evidence to the contrary.

Oct 14, 2013#443

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
China could if it survives the eventually revolution it'll take to oust the communists, but that's still undecided

There isn't going to be a revolution. There will be a stronger class division, but China keeps people in the bottom rung of that division ignorant and for the most part complacent. They don't need to change very much to keep going the way they like.

I suppose it could end up like most cyber punk fiction and end up with the corporations in charge.

You mean overtly as opposed to using political middlemen?

Dave said:
It means that the republicans changed the rules so that only boehner and whomever he appoints can reopen the government, even though up until October 1, 2013 it was the privilege of ANY house member to start the motions to do so. Those of you who are saying it's the democrats fault for this? Your points have become invalid as this is concrete evidence to the contrary.

And it's all nice and legal. Fucking hurray!

Oct 14, 2013#444

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
Don't kid yourself. There WILL be a point when ether the government of China is going to have to stop being so authoritarian AND communist, especially if they want to grow their economy into something that does more than export cheap products for first world nations. The only question is whether this will be a natural evolution of the ruling party (and thus a peaceful change) or something else.

China's going to change. We're just not sure WHAT it's going to change into or how it'll happen.

I think you overestimate the degree to which China is still communist in anything but name. A one-party system, sure, but it's not really all that more oligarchical than the US' 2 party system or even that of parliamentary democracies like ours, these days. As far as the marketplace goes, China is well on its way to out-capitalism-ing the US.

Other than that, most of the current up-and-cioming countries (Brazil, India, whatever) rely too much on Western consumption to move their economies. We'll see, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we ended up in a power vacuum for a decade or two before a new group or nation comes to the fore. I'm just afraid it might be actual corporatism as multinationals become bigger, more important and more all-encompassing than national governments. I don't think anyone can consider Red Mars/Blue Mars/Green Mars style terran politics as a good goal to strive for.

Oct 14, 2013#445

PatrThom

Dave said:
It means that the republicans changed the rules so that only boehner and whomever he appoints can reopen the government, even though up until October 1, 2013 it was the privilege of ANY house member to start the motions to do so. Those of you who are saying it's the democrats fault for this? Your points have become invalid as this is concrete evidence to the contrary.

I got that this was the end effect, but it's all that talk about "privileged" and other vocabulary that I don't follow. They all have specific meanings when used in congressional context, so while I get the plot, I don't know the story.

--Patrick

Oct 14, 2013#446

Dave

PatrThom said:
I got that this was the end effect, but it's all that talk about "privileged" and other vocabulary that I don't follow. They all have specific meanings when used in congressional context, so while I get the plot, I don't know the story.

--Patrick

In essence, when there's a stalemate of this sort, before October 1 ANYONE could call for the senate bill to come to a vote - which has the votes to pass and open the government. But the rule change prohibits anyone but boehner or his chosen people to call for the vote, effectively changing longstanding rules specifically to keep the government closed and not bring this to a vote.

Oct 14, 2013#447

Bowielee

They better enjoy that little party while it lasts. Even the bulk of republicans are starting to get cold feet about holding the government hostage as a bargaining chip against Obamacare. You can be damn sure that that addendum will be reworked as soon as everything's back up and running.

Oct 14, 2013#448

Necronic

Tiger Tsang said:
Oh just to stir the pot a bit more.

That is pretty apalling.

Oct 14, 2013#449

PatrThom

Necronic said:
That is pretty apalling.

It does make them appear like they are more interested in prolonging the problem than in finding a solution.

--Patrick

Oct 14, 2013#450

Gilgamesh

PatrThom said:
It does make them appear like they are more interested in prolonging the problem than in finding a solution.

--Patrick

Considering their only solution after failing to defund is delay for a year, does that surprise anyone?

Oct 14, 2013#451

SpecialKO

Necronic said:
That is pretty apalling.

In New York, they call that one "the Shelly Silver".

Oct 14, 2013#452

GasBandit

I wonder if they all have those giant cue cards with parliamentary rules printed out in 3 inch lettering just lying around for just such an occasion.

Oct 14, 2013#453

Dave

GasBandit said:
I wonder if they all have those giant cue cards with parliamentary rules printed out in 3 inch lettering just lying around for just such an occasion.

Like it would be difficult to have something like that made in the week and a half after the rule change? Does this somehow invalidate the report? I notice a startling lack of rebuttal.

Oct 14, 2013#454

strawman

Shake your fist at them some more Dave.

Oct 14, 2013#455

GasBandit

Dave said:
Like it would be difficult to have something like that made in the week and a half after the rule change? Does this somehow invalidate the report? I notice a startling lack of rebuttal.

No no, no rebuttal. Clearly the republicans changed the rules to give themselves every procedural advantage in making sure they couldn't be forced out of the shutdown before they got... well, whatever it is they want, since it seems to change daily. But let's not kid ourselves that the other side hasn't/doesn't/wouldn't behave in the exact same manner.

Oct 14, 2013#456

Dave

stienman said:
Shake your fist at them some more Dave.

As opposed to....? I have already reached out to all of my senators and representatives and have been handily and completely shut down. And since I live in Nebraska where they will vote for nothing but red, it's really the only thing I can do. Doesn't matter that they are purposely attempting to cause as much damage to the country as they possibly can, I can't do anything until the next election cycle and even then because of the morons in my state it's not even something I can do anything about then.[DOUBLEPOST=1381764444,1381764410][/DOUBLEPOST]I also notice a lack of rebuttal on your part as to why this is a good thing.

Oct 14, 2013#457

strawman

This is a good thing for the republicans who want to ensure that their shutdown threat can't be weakened.

That's only a good thing if you believe the republican strategy is good.

Since you don't and since none of my other arguments have swayed you, I conclude that there's little point in attempting to rehash them.

As far as whether this tactic is good, politicians use procedure to their benefit every day they are in session. This minor rule change gives them greater power for this fight. It isn't sneaky or underhanded any more than any other rule congress bends, rewrites, or uses when it suits them to do so.

Of course the opposition will paint it and publicize it as slimy, but again it's nothing more than what either side does at certain times to push their own agenda.

Oct 14, 2013#458

Dave

Shutdown threat?!? What threat? They shut it down and are keeping it shut down ON PURPOSE! Can you still say that this is a democrat shutdown?

Oct 14, 2013#459

Hailey Knight

We're looking at the threat of global economic recession, potentially depression, if shit doesn't get handled with the debt ceiling soon.

Guess the Tea Party wins after all.

Does anyone have a farm? I'm pretty sure that's going to be the only viable career choice for me once this all goes down and no one needs courts or writing anymore. I'm young, fit, healthy, I don't complain at work, and I do what I'm told.

Oct 14, 2013#460

Dave

But...but everyone does it so it must be okay, no matter what the consequences are! And since it aligns with their skewed and insane world view, people think this is great! Absolutely amazing.

Oct 14, 2013#461

PatrThom

I just went over to see if the Songify the News guys have done a take on this yet.
They haven't.

--Patrick

Oct 14, 2013#462

Covar

Dave said:
But...but everyone does it so it must be okay, no matter what the consequences are! And since it aligns with their skewed and insane world view, people think this is great! Absolutely amazing.

It's only okay when my guy does it. Just like it's only okay for you when your guy does it. Clearly.

Oct 14, 2013#463

Shakey

Quotemander Prime said:
Does anyone have a farm? I'm pretty sure that's going to be the only viable career choice for me once this all goes down and no one needs courts or writing anymore. I'm young, fit, healthy, I don't complain at work, and I do what I'm told.

Not so sure about that.
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/14/233790772/s-d-ranchers-struggle-to-get-out-from-under-blizzard

Oct 14, 2013#464

Hailey Knight

Shakey said:
Not so sure about that.
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/14/233790772/s-d-ranchers-struggle-to-get-out-from-under-blizzard

A freak October blizzard earlier this month killed tens of thousands of cattle in South Dakota.
The number of animals is hard to confirm. In part, because the federal agency tasked with tallying livestock losses after a disaster is closed during the partial government shutdown.

Oct 14, 2013#465

strawman

Dave said:
Shutdown threat?!? What threat? They shut it down and are keeping it shut down ON PURPOSE! Can you still say that this is a democrat shutdown?

This is a republican shutdown due to several years of democratic fiscal mismanagement.

You can continue to push the idea that we are where we are today due to the actions of the republicans, but it simply isn't true. If the democrats worked in a bipartisan manner all those years they controlled everything they wouldn't be experiencing this blowback.

I don't know how it'll end. It would surprise me if the house didn't offer a clean debt limit raise bill for the senate to sign this week, and it would surprise me if the senate or Obama chose not to accept it.

So I don't see the debt limit becoming a problem. The republicans are likely the keep the shutdown going until the democrats back down from their non-negotiable stance, but they probably don't need to force the debt ceiling issue, and in fact due to sequester rules it may not be in their favor to do so.

If they do offer a clean debt ceiling bill, then they will be seen as taking one step toward the dance floor, and if the democrats again assert that they won't talk until the shutdown ends the democrats will be seen as non-reconciliatory.

But this is pure speculation, I haven't even read today's news on the subject. Obama was pretty clear in last weeks meeting, though, that Ryan had to go back and get the republicans to move, but Obama and the democrats were still not willing to discuss anything until the shutdown ends.

So, stalemate, still.

Oct 14, 2013#466

Shakey

Quotemander Prime said:

And the farm bill that would help them to recover some of the loss is seemingly going nowhere. Lovely.[DOUBLEPOST=1381766910,1381766685][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
So I don't see the debt limit becoming a problem. The republicans are likely the keep the shutdown going until the democrats back down from their non-negotiable stance, but they probably don't need to force the debt ceiling issue, and in fact due to sequester rules it may not be in their favor to do so.

They have said they will be willing to negotiate. All they have to do is reopen the government for however long they want with a clean bill. They could open it for to weeks while they negotiated if they wanted.

Oct 14, 2013#467

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
This is a republican shutdown due to several years of democratic fiscal mismanagement.

You can continue to push the idea that we are where we are today due to the actions of the republicans, but it simply isn't true. If the democrats worked in a bipartisan manner all those years they controlled everything they wouldn't be experiencing this blowback.

So, it's revenge.

Oct 14, 2013#468

jwhouk

Regarding parliamentary procedure: there's ALWAYS a way of getting around something like that.

Oct 14, 2013#469

GasBandit

Quotemander Prime said:
So, it's revenge.

In the same way that pressing the brakes is revenge against the accelerator.

Oct 14, 2013#470

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
In the same way that pressing the brakes is revenge against the accelerator.

You've driven with my father, then?

--Patrick

Oct 14, 2013#471

strawman

Shakey said:
They have said they will be willing to negotiate. All they have to do is reopen the government for however long they want with a clean bill. They could open it for to weeks while they negotiated if they wanted.

I'm pretty sure they floated that idea and were told that it wouldn't be accepted because Obama wasn't willing to negotiate with the threat of a shutdown hanging over his head either.

Pretty much the only way the democrats are willing to "negotiate" is when the republicans have absolutely no power.

Go figure.

Oct 14, 2013#472

Shakey

stienman said:
I'm pretty sure they floated that idea and were told that it wouldn't be accepted because Obama wasn't willing to negotiate with the threat of a shutdown hanging over his head either.

Pretty much the only way the democrats are willing to "negotiate" is when the republicans have absolutely no power.

Go figure.

No, they would still have a threat of shut down. Obama has specifically said, pass a clean bill that funds the government and raises the debt ceiling for however long you want and I will sign it and negotiate for a longer term deal. They could do it for 2 weeks or a month, meaning the threat of a shutdown will still be there.

Oct 14, 2013#473

GasBandit

Shakey said:
No, they would still have a threat of shut down. Obama has specifically said, pass a clean bill that funds the government and raises the debt ceiling for however long you want and I will sign it and negotiate for a longer term deal. They could do it for 2 weeks or a month, meaning the threat of a shutdown will still be there.

The threat of the shutdown was there for a long time before the shutdown. It didn't help. Hell, even the actual shutdown isn't doing much to budge democrats.

My money's still on Republicans caving first though.

Oct 14, 2013#474

Shakey

GasBandit said:
The threat of the shutdown was there for a long time before the shutdown. It didn't help. Hell, even the actual shutdown isn't doing much to budge democrats.

My money's still on Republicans caving first though.

They won't budge on health care, that's for certain. They have said they'd be willing to look at spending once the government is running again.

Oct 14, 2013#475

GasBandit

Shakey said:
They won't budge on health care, that's for certain. They have said they'd be willing to look at spending once the government is running again.

A transparent platitude that goes nowhere and does nothing. They all howl over how horrible the sequester cuts are, when the reality is we need something akin to the Sequester times 50. Even with it, government spending went up by a further quarter trillion that year.

Oct 14, 2013#476

Shakey

GasBandit said:
A transparent platitude that goes nowhere and does nothing. They all howl over how horrible the sequester cuts are, when the reality is we need something akin to the Sequester times 50. Even with it, government spending went up by a further quarter trillion that year.

Except it's something the Republicans want, and they offered it. Yet they keep howling that the Dems aren't offering anything. All while blocking a vote that they know will pass with support from their own side. Hell, they even had to change the rules to make sure no one else could bring it up because they know it will pass.

This isn't about whether or not what they do will make a difference in the budget. No one wants any real changes. They just want to make it look like there are.

Oct 14, 2013#477

GasBandit

Shakey said:
Except it's something the Republicans want, and they offered it. Yet they keep howling that the Dems aren't offering anything.

Because the offer is "we'll talk about it later, after you give us what we want and you no longer have any leverage." That's not an offer, that's a gaily painted ultimatum.

Oct 14, 2013#478

Shakey

GasBandit said:
Because the offer is "we'll talk about it later, after you give us what we want and you no longer have any leverage." That's not an offer, that's a gaily painted ultimatum.

There is still leverage. If they only open the government for a couple weeks or a month, it's still on the table. It still has to be worked through, otherwise we face another shut down.

Oct 14, 2013#479

Hailey Knight

Shakey said:
They won't budge on health care, that's for certain. They have said they'd be willing to look at spending once the government is running again.

Some Republicans have said they're not aiming at the healthcare anymore.

I'm not sure the apparent leaders of either side are even certain they're their side's leader.

Oct 14, 2013#480

GasBandit

Shakey said:
There is still leverage. If they only open the government for a couple weeks or a month, it's still on the table. It still has to be worked through, otherwise we face another shut down.

I don't think so. As you note, the political will of the rank and file republicans is already broken and the shutdown is only kept by a procedural hurdle. Once the shutdown is over, I don't think that there will be enough solidarity to do this again for quite a while.[DOUBLEPOST=1381771981,1381771945][/DOUBLEPOST]

Quotemander Prime said:
Some Republicans have said they're not aiming at the healthcare anymore.

I'm not sure the apparent leaders of either side are even certain they're their side's leader.

Yeah, it seems the argument has shifted from health care to spending in general.

Oct 14, 2013#481

Shakey

GasBandit said:
I don't think so. As you note, the political will of the rank and file republicans is already broken and the shutdown is only kept by a procedural hurdle. Once the shutdown is over, I don't think that there will be enough solidarity to do this again for quite a while.[DOUBLEPOST=1381771981,1381771945][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yeah, it seems the argument has shifted from health care to spending in general.

The same procedure they're using now to prevent a vote on a budget will still be there in two weeks or a month, so if Boehner doesn't like it he can decide not to bring it up for a vote. There is no reason the government should be shutdown still, other than Republicans want it closed.

Oct 14, 2013#482

GasBandit

Shakey said:
The same procedure they're using now to prevent a vote on a budget will still be there in two weeks or a month, so if Boehner doesn't like it he can decide not to bring it up for a vote. There is no reason the government should be shutdown still, other than Republicans want it closed.

Because there was absolutely nothing the democrats could have done, right? No bills sent their way they could have approved?

Oct 14, 2013#483

Shakey

GasBandit said:
Because there was absolutely nothing the democrats could have done, right? No bills sent their way they could have approved?

You mean funding only the parts of the government that make good headlines? That's a good way to drag this on even longer.

Oct 14, 2013#484

GasBandit

Shakey said:
You mean funding only the parts of the government that make good headlines? That's a good way to drag this on even longer.

If the parts of the government that are necessary to keep us out of default and provide critical services to the citizenry aren't shut down, does it really matter if those that don't are?

Oct 14, 2013#485

Shakey

GasBandit said:
If the parts of the government that are necessary to keep us out of default and provide critical services to the citizenry aren't shut down, does it really matter if those that don't are?

Just because they aren't critical, doesn't mean they aren't needed. So yes, it does matter.

Oct 14, 2013#486

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
If the parts of the government that are necessary to keep us out of default and provide critical services to the citizenry aren't shut down, does it really matter if those that don't are?

Just a note, the critical services are still running, yes, but because their payment isn't considered a critical service, they aren't getting paid for performing them. (Since you can't see me: my hand is raised.) The government isn't saving money this way, just building up debt towards its employees.

Oct 14, 2013#487

Covar

Shakey said:
You mean funding only the parts of the government that make good headlines? That's a good way to drag this on even longer.

I'm reminded of an episode of Hoarders.

Oct 14, 2013#488

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
So, it's revenge.

Well bipartisan means "Fuck you, you don't get what you want, but I get what I want", apparently.

Oct 14, 2013#489

strawman

Shakey said:
The same procedure they're using now to prevent a vote on a budget will still be there in two weeks or a month

I very much doubt that. The instant the logjam is cleared you can bet there will be new laws enacted which prevent this from easily happening again. It could happen, but the opposing side would have to work harder at it. For instance, the little loophole they closed right before shutting the govt down - when it's re-opened I doubt it'll be so easily closed again.

Besides which, do you honestly believe the democrats are going to give any concessions, at all, once they get the government open again? What makes you think so?

Oct 14, 2013#490

strawman

Besides, Obama and the democrats have already rejected any talk about bills that are short term. So now the republicans are saying, ok, let's put a six month debt limit increase in place. Only the democrats are rejecting that too.

You see, in January bipartisan agreed upon sequestration cuts take place automatically, and the democrats want to repeal them before they take place.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._negotiations_democrats_want_a_deal_that.html

The democrats are busy trying to thread a needle to get everything they want without giving the republicans anything they want.

They won't accept any proposal from the republicans that is clean unless it also fits their timeframe so they have the best chance at repealing the upcoming budget cuts.

Those who claim the democrats are innocent in this current scuffle, and pretend that things are very simple are not really paying attention.

Oct 14, 2013#491

Shakey

stienman said:
I very much doubt that. The instant the logjam is cleared you can bet there will be new laws enacted which prevent this from easily happening again. It could happen, but the opposing side would have to work harder at it. For instance, the little loophole they closed right before shutting the govt down - when it's re-opened I doubt it'll be so easily closed again.

Who would be able to close the loophole? There's no way Boehner or any of those that changed it would change it back again, and any vote to change it back would just get blocked.

stienman said:
Besides which, do you honestly believe the democrats are going to give any concessions, at all, once they get the government open again? What makes you think so?

Because the government would just shut down again in two weeks if they don't. And it would now be on the Dems shoulders, so they would take a hammering just as bad if not worse than the Republicans are taking.[DOUBLEPOST=1381778696,1381778405][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
Besides, Obama and the democrats have already rejected any talk about bills that are short term. So now the republicans are saying, ok, let's put a six month debt limit increase in place. Only the democrats are rejecting that too.

You see, in January bipartisan agreed upon sequestration cuts take place automatically, and the democrats want to repeal them before they take place.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._negotiations_democrats_want_a_deal_that.html

The democrats are busy trying to thread a needle to get everything they want without giving the republicans anything they want.

They won't accept any proposal from the republicans that is clean unless it also fits their timeframe so they have the best chance at repealing the upcoming budget cuts.

Those who claim the democrats are innocent in this current scuffle, and pretend that things are very simple are not really paying attention.

So again they're asking for a delay in funding the health care act. That's not rejecting any talk about bills that are short term. They're coming back to the table with exactly what they started with and throwing their hands up and saying the dems aren't negotiating.

Oct 14, 2013#492

strawman

1) I disagree that the democrats couldn't fix things so they'd be able to avoid this in the near future if they wanted once the shutdown stopped. I suppose we will just have to disagree then.

2) the democrats WILL NOT accept a short term deal. They've already said they won't. What makes you think they will? They won't even accept a six week clean debt limit increase they've been offered.

3) if you carefully read the entire article you'll note it mentions several aspects of the attempted negotiations over the weekend. While the republicans are still working on the healthcare thing, you should have seen that apart from that the democrats are not willing to discuss debt limit raises and budgetary shutdown timeframes that fall outside their plan. In other words, there are things the democrats are saying publicly that they will accept, but are turning down inside negotiating sessions in order to further their own partisan goals. All while still not giving anything to their opposition.

Oct 14, 2013#493

GasBandit

All this back and forth may be for nothing - Senators Reid and McConnell are sounding very chummy today.

Oct 14, 2013#494

Shakey

stienman said:
1) I disagree that the democrats couldn't fix things so they'd be able to avoid this in the near future if they wanted once the shutdown stopped. I suppose we will just have to disagree then.

2) the democrats WILL NOT accept a short term deal. They've already said they won't. What makes you think they will? They won't even accept a six week clean debt limit increase they've been offered.

3) if you carefully read the entire article you'll note it mentions several aspects of the attempted negotiations over the weekend. While the republicans are still working on the healthcare thing, you should have seen that apart from that the democrats are not willing to discuss debt limit raises and budgetary shutdown timeframes that fall outside their plan. In other words, there are things the democrats are saying publicly that they will accept, but are turning down inside negotiating sessions in order to further their own partisan goals. All while still not giving anything to their opposition.

1. If they could, why wouldn't they do it now? They have the votes to pass a clean funding and debt limit increase already. It just can't be presented without Boehners ok.

2. When have they said that? Like I said, the one in the article, still has a provision for delaying funding for health care. I have yet to see Boehner present a clean funding or debt limit increase no matter the timeline. If they are willing to do that, they should. No matter the timeline. Play their hand, lets see if the Dems would vote against it.

3.Again, let's see where Republicans have put forth a clean funding and debt limit increase that plays into the timeline Dems don't want. There is nothing stopping them from doing that.

Oct 14, 2013#495

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
Besides, Obama and the democrats have already rejected any talk about bills that are short term. So now the republicans are saying, ok, let's put a six month debt limit increase in place. Only the democrats are rejecting that too.

You see, in January bipartisan agreed upon sequestration cuts take place automatically, and the democrats want to repeal them before they take place.

Except the squestration cuts were never supposed to take place. Everybody involved agreed that it was the stupidest way to cut the budget.

The sequestration cuts were supposed to be a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the Senate and the Congress so that they could negotiate on a budget deal. Since they couldn't come to an agreement due to democrats demanding some extra taxes and republicans demanding no extra taxes sequestration happened.

Nobody should be for Sequestration cause it cuts all government programs by a set amount regardless of effectiveness or necessity.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._negotiations_democrats_want_a_deal_that.html

The democrats are busy trying to thread a needle to get everything they want without giving the republicans anything they want.

They won't accept any proposal from the republicans that is clean unless it also fits their timeframe so they have the best chance at repealing the upcoming budget cuts.

Except Collins' proposal wasn't clean. If it was it would have been easily passed by the senate then been rejected by the house.

Those who claim the democrats are innocent in this current scuffle, and pretend that things are very simple are not really paying attention.

Democrats would vote overwhelmingly for a clean CR and Debt ceiling increase. Collins' plan wasn't clean.

Oct 14, 2013#496

Krisken

Wanting a chance to look over what the opposing party puts in bills? Yeah, I can't see why that would be important to the Democrats.

Oct 15, 2013#497

Hailey Knight

End of Tuesday suggests GasBandit might be right, that the Republicans will soon be throwing in the towel. Right now it's the Tea Party twerps who think they can still come out on top from this and are happy to drive the country into default, but there aren't enough of them.

And why oh why did I scroll down to the comments on one of the news articles? People are so fucking stupid.

Oct 16, 2013#498

jwhouk

And yet the Tea Partiers may yet drive us off the fiscal cliff. Cruz is apparently contemplating another filibuster that would push Senate debate past the debt limit deadline.

Oct 16, 2013#499

strawman

Well the house really only has three options at this point:

Pass the senate bill
Pass their own bill (but apparently they don't have even the votes from their own party now to pass anything with meaning)
Let the deadline pass

Of course the deadline is an estimate made a month ago by the US Treasury, and as an estimate it may be off by a day or two, but they don't readjust it once they set it. Even if they have money for another day, or even if they actually "ran out" a day ago, they keep the date the same for a variety of reasons.

Some are suggesting that the date is arbitrary, and we may have more time, but the reality is that once it passes without an increase, the treasury will act accordingly and start telling investors that they are going to default on certain notes.

Now the question, if the house does decide to let the deadline slip by, is whether the treasury will act like the administration ( and they probably will, because guess who directs them?) and rather than paying some notes and asking for extensions on others if they will simply shut everything down, as they seem to enjoy doing, to make sure everyone understands that there's a problem.

At any rate I'm surprised the house hasn't passed a clean debt limit raise without reopening the government. They are missing an opportunity here to show their constituents that they are not willing to let the credit rating fail, but will continue to push their agenda with the democrats. Seems like the perfect time to force the democrats to accept a simple bill, and ask for negotiations again.

What am I missing about this that they aren't considering it?

Oct 16, 2013#500

Shakey

stienman said:
At any rate I'm surprised the house hasn't passed a clean debt limit raise without reopening the government. They are missing an opportunity here to show their constituents that they are not willing to let the credit rating fail, but will continue to push their agenda with the democrats. Seems like the perfect time to force the democrats to accept a simple bill, and ask for negotiations again.

What am I missing about this that they aren't considering it?

I think the problem is, a lot of them ran on a very radical hard line approach, and it's one they truly believe in. They don't want to compromise, and they seriously believe that there's no harm in letting the US default. It shows the harm that can be done by electing someone whose entire campaign is built on the "I am against everything the other party is for" idea. The voters wanted someone who was obstructionist and won't come to the table to deal at all, well here it is. Enjoy it.

I feel a bit bad for Boehner. I don't think the majority of what he says or does is what he wants. He's simply trying to hold his party together, and has no other choice but to play into the more radical element. Otherwise absolutely nothing would get done.

Forums