What? No government shutdown threads?

[michal1980]

Elected Republicans(atleast one) likening Obamacare to 9/11 was just sickening. Fucking twats.

Republicans, playing chicken with our economy since 2010. This time will be different, the GOP will reap what it sows with this shut down. Wall Street is none to pleased with the GOP at this point.

Dems are calling the republicans terrorists. No problem with that right?

Futhermore, stop with the fear mongering, there wont be an economic collapse if the government shuts down for a few days. Just like there wasn't due to sequester.

 

[fskimospy]

why cant Obama care be delayed?

Obama without congress delayed part of it. But congress. omg, congress cannot?

I never realized we have a dictatorship.

How is that list of compromises coming?

 

[Jhhnn]

When the Repubs are in power, their base gets thrown a bone or two so they go back to their doggie dens and get busy gnawing on those bones with their ears shut and their eyes closed because all is good and fine. All this while their very own legislators and their super rich benefactors are knifing them in the back, taking away their gov't benefits, sending their jobs overseas and using those savings to stuff the pockets of the very rich who then throw these lapdog legislators their own bone or two.

Trickle down Reaganomics at its finest.

The most amazing part is the successful vilification of anybody receiving govt assistance, even as Repub policy increases the need for it. It's been sad to watch as proud middle class conservatives & their families have been beaten down, driven into extended unemployment, disability, food stamps & the rest by the very policies they've cheered for decades. Yet they still believe. In the process, they've come to hate themselves, and it shows.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dems are calling the republicans terrorists. No problem with that right?

Hostage taking & extortion are basic features of terrorism, and of organized crime, as well.

Futhermore, stop with the fear mongering, there wont be an economic collapse if the government shuts down for a few days. Just like there wasn't due to sequester.

So what the Teatards are doing is just grandstanding & posturing that will have no real effect? That they expect Dems to cave to their demands on the basis of that? Why would Dems cave if there is no effect?

How is that not extortion?

 

[werepossum]

I've faced large hospital bills WITH insurance and they didn't just 'write them off', especially before any contact was made or bill was issued to me to pay. I've paid EVERY bill that I was supposed to pay, unlike others.

I too have been in that position. And oddly, my wife's doctor costs us more with her insured than when we were paying cash, even after we've met our HSA deductible.

How is any of what's going on remotely constitutional? Forcing a massive financial crisis and leading thousands of federal employees to be furloughed because the current head of the executive branch isn't willing to meet a laundry list of demands isn't exactly part of the legislative handbook.

To me it seems like the worst thing possible to happen is for Mr. Obama to agree to even a single demand from the Republicans and set a precedent for bypassing Congress. You might as well just shut the place down and count down to the next debt ceiling for the nominal head of one party to come up with a new list of things to ask the President for.

The President compromising with Congress would be bypassing Congress? That statement needs an award.

His debt ceiling? Congress, including the House Republicans, passed every dime of spending. Given the Republican track record on spending and then refusing to cover their spending with taxes, it would be far more reasonable to call it the Republican Debt Ceiling.

We've faced essentially this same issue since Obama took office, or at least since 2010. Congressional Dems have been unwilling to cut any spending or even craft a budget on which a compromise could be negotiated, forcing the Pubbies to accept continuing resolutions at 2008 bail-out funding levels even though Obama has supposedly fixed the economy. Now the Pubbies are fighting back, although frankly I wish they had done so over the continuing resolutions rather than over the debt ceiling increase. The Demos own the popular press, which means the Republicans are not going to win this battle ultimately. Gotta pick your battles if you want to win the war, and I don't see them winning this one, ever.

This one may be bad compared to the last seventeen. For the Pubbies, not postponing Obamacare means that by the next election cycle a majority of American households are on some form of public assistance, which makes any smaller-government platform problematic. For the Dems, not implementing Obamacare means Obama (and by extension the Democrats) has done nothing except for gays and illegals, plus it would rob them of a major fundraising tool, Obamacare exemptions. If this goes on long enough the Dems may well take back the House, at which point we're back to trillion+ deficits every year and 2010-2013 may be looked back on as the fiscally responsible years.

 

[werepossum]

The most amazing part is the successful vilification of anybody receiving govt assistance, even as Repub policy increases the need for it. It's been sad to watch as proud middle class conservatives & their families have been beaten down, driven into extended unemployment, disability, food stamps & the rest by the very policies they've cheered for decades. Yet they still believe. In the process, they've come to hate themselves, and it shows.

LOL Let's all stop and remember the amazing programs designed to keep set forth "proud middle class conservatives & their families" off government assistance passed by the Democrats when they had an absolute unstoppable majority.

 

[yllus]

The President compromising with Congress would be bypassing Congress? That statement needs an award.

He's not compromising with Congress; he's being asked to meet an arbitrary list of demands of a few people who are in Congress, and those demands don't even mostly deal with the ACA. The compromising phase of the process for the ACA occurred when it was debated, assented, and then went before the Supreme Court for good measure.

This is abuse of a non-process - it's incredible that Americans are standing for this.

 

[werepossum]

He's not compromising with Congress; he's being asked to meet an arbitrary list of demands of a few people who are in Congress, and those demands don't even mostly deal with the ACA. The compromising phase of the process for the ACA occurred when it was debated, assented, and then went before the Supreme Court for good measure.

This is abuse of a non-process - it's incredible that Americans are standing for this.

Ah, now I see. So the "compromising" phase of the process for the ACA occurred when it was passed by a straight partyline vote.

 

[fskimospy]

I too have been in that position. And oddly, my wife's doctor costs us more with her insured than when we were paying cash, even after we've met our HSA deductible.


The President compromising with Congress would be bypassing Congress? That statement needs an award.


We've faced essentially this same issue since Obama took office, or at least since 2010. Congressional Dems have been unwilling to cut any spending or even craft a budget on which a compromise could be negotiated, forcing the Pubbies to accept continuing resolutions at 2008 bail-out funding levels even though Obama has supposedly fixed the economy. Now the Pubbies are fighting back, although frankly I wish they had done so over the continuing resolutions rather than over the debt ceiling increase. The Demos own the popular press, which means the Republicans are not going to win this battle ultimately. Gotta pick your battles if you want to win the war, and I don't see them winning this one, ever.

This one may be bad compared to the last seventeen. For the Pubbies, not postponing Obamacare means that by the next election cycle a majority of American households are on some form of public assistance, which makes any smaller-government platform problematic. For the Dems, not implementing Obamacare means Obama (and by extension the Democrats) has done nothing except for gays and illegals, plus it would rob them of a major fundraising tool, Obamacare exemptions. If this goes on long enough the Dems may well take back the House, at which point we're back to trillion+ deficits every year and 2010-2013 may be looked back on as the fiscally responsible years.

Can you maybe take a crack at providing a list of things that Republicans are attempting to compromise on? I can't find a single one.

 

[Brainonska511]

He's not compromising with Congress; he's being asked to meet an arbitrary list of demands of a few people who are in Congress, and those demands don't even mostly deal with the ACA. The compromising phase of the process for the ACA occurred when it was debated, assented, and then went before the Supreme Court for good measure.

This is abuse of a non-process - it's incredible that Americans are standing for this.

Obama doesn't have anything to gain by compromising on the ACA. It's already the law of the land. All "compromising" would serve to do is water it down and give the Republicans another year of screaming about it and more opportunities to add more impediments to its proper implementation.

If the Republicans wanted compromise, there was plenty of time to sit down at the table, hammer out what they wanted when the ACA was being debated and written. There has even been ample opportunity to introduce fixes to problems that have come up, but it as always only "REPEAL!!!!! BLAHBLAHBLAH". Trying to do an end-run around the legislative process by trying to force through a defunding with the threat of a shut down (and in 17 days, a default, which would be much more catastrophic), is completely inappropriate, to put it mildly.

 

[Chiropteran]

Ultimately this is evidence that our system of government has failed and needs to be scrapped. Time for the revolution.

 

[boomerang]

Ultimately this is evidence that our system of government has failed and needs to be scrapped. Time for the revolution.

I don't think it needs to be scrapped. I think we're just long overdue for a major housecleaning. I think the heads of some Senators and Congressmen on pikes throughout DC would go a long ways towards correcting our problems. We can't vote our way out of this.

 

[werepossum]

Can you maybe take a crack at providing a list of things that Republicans are attempting to compromise on? I can't find a single one.

Gee, hard to believe that MSNBC and ThinkProgress haven't enlightened you on that.

For the Republicans, everything is on the table for cuts. Even the military has received cuts in Republican budgets. Those budgets are published; you can look them up should you care to do so.

 

[fskimospy]

Gee, hard to believe that MSNBC and ThinkProgress haven't enlightened you on that.

For the Republicans, everything is on the table for cuts. Even the military has received cuts in Republican budgets. Those budgets are published; you can look them up should you care to do so.

Ahh yes, the endless progressive conspiracy. You poor, poor victim.

Outside of your pointless insult, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was asking about Republican compromise in relation to the topic of this thread, the government shutdown/debt ceiling breach. Can you list the Republican compromises in regards to this?

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL Let's all stop and remember the amazing programs designed to keep set forth "proud middle class conservatives & their families" off government assistance passed by the Democrats when they had an absolute unstoppable majority.

Please. Dems had a majority in the midst of the most dangerous economic calamity since the Great Depression. The active market economic forces pushing people into govt assistance were extreme, and had been accumulating for years.

People needed to be pulled out of the freezing water before they could build a new Titanic, or anything else.

I'll agree that Dems were caught flat footed, dithered away that majority & the impetus for change. I'd hoped that Obama's first 100 days would have been more like this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

You'd be squealing even louder if it had been, I'm sure.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Gee, hard to believe that MSNBC and ThinkProgress haven't enlightened you on that.

For the Republicans, everything is on the table for cuts. Even the military has received cuts in Republican budgets. Those budgets are published; you can look them up should you care to do so.

What kind of a compromise is that supposed to be when cuts only is your primary goal?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Please. Dems had a majority in the midst of the most dangerous economic calamity since the Great Depression. The active market economic forces pushing people into govt assistance were extreme, and had been accumulating for years.

People needed to be pulled out of the freezing water before they could build a new Titanic, or anything else.

I'll agree that Dems were caught flat footed, dithered away that majority & the impetus for change. I'd hoped that Obama's first 100 days would have been more like this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

You'd be squealing even louder if it had been, I'm sure.

Being a political outsider I find this whole thing fascinating.

The Dems absolutely hate the Republicans and the reverse is true. To listen to the former this is The End. The latter thinks the same about O'care.

Using the Titanic as a metaphor the Republicans would sink it to prevent the ACA, and the Democrats would sink the ship to save it. It's great to be a peasant

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Using the Titanic as a metaphor the Republicans would sink it to prevent the ACA, and the Democrats would sink the ship to save it.

This would be funny if it wasn't the truth.

 

[fskimospy]

This would be funny if it wasn't the truth.

This is really more false equivalence. Forget the ACA, pretend it is just law X and Party A and Party B.

Less than one year after an election that saw Party A lose the presidency by five million votes, lose House seats, lose Senate seats, and lose the overall congressional vote by 1.7 million votes, you have the defeated party A making exactly this demand:

1.) Unless you repeal law X, we will not allow the federal government to function.

2.) Following that, if you still fail to repeal law X and do not implement this list of other policies that we want, we will cause a worldwide financial crisis.

If Party B says yes to this, what is there to stop Party A from threatening the stability of the country and the world each and every year? And just as importantly, when the balance of power shifts what stops Party B from doing exactly the same thing? Presumably we can all agree that yearly financial crisis would be a horrible long term policy, yet that is the inevitable outcome of giving in to this behavior.

Sooner or later someone will miscalculate or want to test the waters and that crisis will happen. Might as well happen now as the alternative is even worse.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is really more false equivalence. Forget the ACA, pretend it is just law X and Party A and Party B.

Less than one year after an election that saw Party A lose the presidency by five million votes, lose House seats, lose Senate seats, and lose the overall congressional vote by 1.7 million votes, you have the defeated party A making exactly this demand:

1.) Unless you repeal law X, we will not allow the federal government to function.

2.) Following that, if you still fail to repeal law X and do not implement this list of other policies that we want, we will cause a worldwide financial crisis.

If Party B says yes to this, what is there to stop Party A from threatening the stability of the country and the world each and every year? And just as importantly, when the balance of power shifts what stops Party B from doing exactly the same thing? Presumably we can all agree that yearly financial crisis would be a horrible long term policy, yet that is the inevitable outcome of giving in to this behavior.

Sooner or later someone will miscalculate or want to test the waters and that crisis will happen. Might as well happen now as the alternative is even worse.

How many times have Dems actually shutdown the government since the 1970's because they wanted something? You act as if this tactic is unprecendented or is somehow fundamentally different than previous actions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is really more false equivalence.

To you it would be, yet the fact remains that you will let the nation burn for the ACA and call it principle. It isn't about what we need or want, it's about Party A and Party B and rather than back down both you and the republicans will go to scorched earth mode. You didn't care what people wanted, you insisted they take the ACA and the mandate and defended it against all else. Well the Republicans responded in their own "adorable" way and we have what both parties asked for. Oh maybe they didn't want it, but the Dems ordered everyone to lie down and obey, and the Reps kind of know they don't want this thingy but wait, was there something that needed to be done?

Party uber alles.

 

[cubby1223]

This is really more false equivalence. Forget the ACA, pretend it is just law X and Party A and Party B.

Less than one year after an election that saw Party A lose the presidency by five million votes, lose House seats, lose Senate seats, and lose the overall congressional vote by 1.7 million votes, you have the defeated party A making exactly this demand:

1.) Unless you repeal law X, we will not allow the federal government to function.

2.) Following that, if you still fail to repeal law X and do not implement this list of other policies that we want, we will cause a worldwide financial crisis.

If Party B says yes to this, what is there to stop Party A from threatening the stability of the country and the world each and every year? And just as importantly, when the balance of power shifts what stops Party B from doing exactly the same thing? Presumably we can all agree that yearly financial crisis would be a horrible long term policy, yet that is the inevitable outcome of giving in to this behavior.

Sooner or later someone will miscalculate or want to test the waters and that crisis will happen. Might as well happen now as the alternative is even worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown

Apparently we've had numerous world-wide financial crisis's and the country's stability ripped apart, all the while no one really noticing?

It's interesting how before the era of non-stop news coverage, government shutdowns were normal and didn't really have much affect on the world-wide financial system nor the stability of this country.

But now that we have around-the-clock reporting from career partisan pundits...

 

[fskimospy]

How many times have Dems actually shutdown the government since the 1970's because they wanted something? You act as if this tactic is unprecendented or is somehow fundamentally different than previous actions.

Yes, it most certainly is different. I'm seriously baffled that anyone buys the line that this is business as usual.

There have been plenty of government shutdowns over differences in funding levels and a number of shutdowns over whether or not the government would fund abortion in various ways. There has never been an attempt to repeal legislation in this way.

Again though, I don't really care about the shutdown nearly so much as the debt ceiling. Sure the Republicans are acting incredibly irresponsible with the government shutdown, but in the end the economic impact will likely be modest. There is simply no precedent for any serious threat to not raise the debt ceiling.

And all this after an election 11 months prior where they ran on much of this very platform and lost.

 

[fskimospy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown

Apparently we've had numerous world-wide financial crisis's and the country's stability ripped apart, all the while no one really noticing?

It's interesting how before the era of non-stop news coverage, government shutdowns were normal and didn't really have much affect on the world-wide financial system nor the stability of this country.

But now that we have around-the-clock reporting from career partisan pundits...

You need to go read my posts better.

 

[fskimospy]

To you it would be, yet the fact remains that you will let the nation burn for the ACA and call it principle. It isn't about what we need or want, it's about Party A and Party B and rather than back down both you and the republicans will go to scorched earth mode. You didn't care what people wanted, you insisted they take the ACA and the mandate and defended it against all else. Well the Republicans responded in their own "adorable" way and we have what both parties asked for. Oh maybe they didn't want it, but the Dems ordered everyone to lie down and obey, and the Reps kind of know they don't want this thingy but wait, was there something that needed to be done?

Party uber alles.

Care to address the substance of my post? Probably not, because you can't. You know I'm right but you're too blinded with hatred for the ACA to admit it.