Some of you may be regular readers of Kevin Drum's blog - if so, you probably have already read the following. But if not:
//http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/public-blames-republicans-government-shutdown
QuoteQ: Why do we need a 6-week Continuing Resolution to keep the government running?
A: Because Congress hasn't passed a budget for the new year, which begins October 1st.
Q: And why is that?
A: There's no mystery. Both the House and Senate passed budget resolutions months ago, but Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP have refused to open talks with the Senate to negotiate a final budget number.
Q: Why is that?
A: They've been crystal clear about this. They wanted more leverage for their demands, and they figured the only way to get that was to threaten a government shutdown. Here's the Washington Post last May:
Republicans face a listless summer, with little appetite for compromise but no leverage to shape an agreement. Without that leverage, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Tuesday, there is no point in opening formal budget negotiations between the House and the Senate.
...."The debt limit is the backstop," Ryan said before taking the stage at a debt summit organized by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation in Washington. "I'd like to go through regular order and get something done sooner rather than later. But we need to get a down payment on the debt. We need entitlement reform. We're very serious about tax reform because we think that's critical to economic growth and job creation. Those are the things we want to talk about."
This is why the public is likely to blame Republicans for a government shutdown: because Republicans have been very clear all along that they were deliberately stringing out the budget process so they could use a shutdown as leverage for their demands. At the time Ryan made the statement above, it looked like we'd hit the debt ceiling before we hit the end of the budget year, so that was the "backstop." Now it's turned out that the end of the budget year will come first, so that's become the backstop instead. Either way, though, Republicans have been quite open for months about their desire to delay negotiations until they had a government shutdown of some kind to use as a threat. Now they have it, and they're using it.
So that's that. They're the ones who said they wanted a shutdown as leverage. They can't really pretend otherwise at this point.
So the Republicans are playing politics as usual. I don't see anything new here. Happens quite a bit here in California. The minority party uses what little clout they have to try to get things their way. The Democrats don't want to compromise because they have the popularity of Obama on their side. Politics as usual. With the poor being the only ones who will really suffer. Congress and all of the party games makes me sick. Neither party gives a damn about Main Street. Just their own petty little careers and Wall Street.
Why are the republicans always in denial, and it isn't a river in Egypt? "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." They are as progressive as the Bible and Koran are, and just as counter to the good of society. Of course it is all because we have a Muslim President. :shock: :roll: Solitary
Yeah, it's the GOP's fault the government has been spending at near trillion dollar deficits for the last 5 years. Certainly this situation is partly the GOP's fault and they probably are using this to further their political goals, but the Democrats have some blame in running the debt to the point where this is the case.
Wars cost money as the Russians found out the hard way. Why are we still in a war on drugs and terrorist? Because they are still a problem that won't go away. We also have CEO's that screw everyone in the world that has produced terrorist here and abroad. How is one man that is filibustered to death suppose to change anything when republican money talks like the Koch brothers, Churches, and the Church do? Let's not forget which party allowed CEO's to move operations and jobs over seas, and allowed them tax shelters. No wonder a God would have destroyed most of mankind, because we are the problem and always will be. I'm happy it will all end soon for me. :shock: :-D Solitary
Statistics not from republican sites or investor sites: Obama received a bounce in his job approval rating during and after the recent Democratic convention, reaching 50% for the week ending Sept. 9, but it is too early to tell if that increase will be sustained for the remainder of the month.
Bottom Line
Americans are clearly better off on several economic and mood measures now than they were in February 2009 when President Obama took office. However, the most substantial gains on these measures mainly occurred early in his administration, with trends mixed since then -- particularly the downturn on all measures in the late summer and early fall of 2011 during the debt ceiling crisis. Additionally, most of these measures were historically very low when Obama took office.
The two measures that show more straightforward gains during the Obama administration are the Job Creation Index, which has risen fairly steadily from a -5 when he took office to today's +19, and the standard of living measure, which has gone from 35% who say their standard of living is getting better to 48% today.
Obama's job approval rating, a key predictor of a president's re-election probabilities, was at 45% in August, below his term average of 49% and well below the 60%+ averages when he first took office in 2009. However, Obama's 50% job approval rating for the week of his party's just-finished convention suggests that September may be a better month for Obama than August.
Quote from: "The Whit"Yeah, it's the GOP's fault the government has been spending at near trillion dollar deficits for the last 5 years. Certainly this situation is partly the GOP's fault and they probably are using this to further their political goals, but the Democrats have some blame in running the debt to the point where this is the case.
I didn't say or imply that large deficits are only the GOP's fault. I said (actually quoted) that it is the GOP's fault that the government will shut down. The GOP didn't have to force things to a shutdown to get agreement on a budget. They could have done the traditional thing which is for the House to get together with the Senate in a joint committee to hash out a compromise. But the House GOP wanted more leverage than they would have in such joint negotiations, so they are choosing to shut the government down in hopes of getting more leverage.
As to how much deficit is too much deficit, and to the degree that it is too big - what blend of spending cuts and tax increases we should have to address it - that is a different big topic.
How many times did the GOP pass a bill to repeal Obamacare? 42 times.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
-- Albert Einstein
I remembered something. We don't have the California government shutting down every other year since we passed a referendum saying that if the legislature and the governor don't agree on a budget on time, they don't get paid until they do. Too bad we can't have national referendums, then we could pass a bill something like California's and then neither party would drag their feet on passing a budget.
A terrific idea! =D> Solitary
A note about the budget deficit - contrary to what a lot of people think, the budget deficit is already decreasing significantly. The budget deficit this year is $400 billion less than last year (//http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/321105-deficit-reaches-750-billion-for-2013-cbo).
The GOP doesn't care about deficits. They never did. They want Obamacare to be repealed. (Hint: One of the biggest provisions is that it holds health care insurance companies' profits and administrative costs to 20% instead of the actual 40%)
Tea Party Tea Party Tea Party. The Ayn Rand inspired name sake Rand Paul among other Tea Party gerimander elected officials have no concept of history, no regard for the law, and no appetite for resposibility.
The Koch brothers financed and concieved the idea of a false grassroots political action group that would utilize gerimandering to make districts far rightwing, and to oust any republican that wasn't extreme right and obedient to the Koch brothers. With mouth pieces like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others lying 24/7 on every FOX and Newscorp outlet, the ignorant, uneducated, moronic, imbred, base of the republican party have elected Ted Cruz and many many irresponsible corrupt officials that toe....NOT the republican party line, but the extremely Fascist-Nazi-Tea party line. That line means no care for the sick and poor, it means disinfranchising the minorities, it means restrict voting rights, it means racism sexism homophobia, it means a war on women, minorities, nature, science, history, education, unions, workers, the middle class, and everything that isn't rich white theist and male in this nation.
The bullentin board material is all "Obamacare". That isn't even the name of the bill. The propaganda is all about how noone wants the Healthcare Reform Act even though it has been a law so long that it has even been tested in the highest court in the land.
This crap is just more obstructionism by the republicans. They want to circumvent the law, because THEY LOST THE ELECTION....TWICE!
They WANT the US economy to fail. They WANT people to suffer. They will blame it on Liberals and treehuggers and PBS and science and evolution, and anything they can use as a distraction.
The aim of the Tea Party is to redistribute ALL, and yes I said ALL wealth into the hands of the Koch brothers.Why would the Koch brothers care about the US economy crapping out? They don't, not at all. They have money all over the world. If the US fails defaults hits the skids, the Koch brothers will probably profit from that event.
The Koch brothers have been fighting the US Constitution since before they were born, and that is a fact. Their family is tied to the J.P. Morgan fight aganst Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt upheld the constitution forcing Mogan to lose millions.
The Koch brothers have no loyalty to the USA. Their Loyalty is to the Koch brothers, no matter what nation they are in or what political government is in place. They would be perfectly fine in Iran as long as they had control of all the wealth.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Pet ... -anonymity (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opini ... .html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0)
http://www.policymic.com/articles/12588 ... h-brothers (http://www.policymic.com/articles/12588/how-the-tea-party-was-hijacked-by-the-koch-brothers)
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I remembered something. We don't have the California government shutting down every other year since we passed a referendum saying that if the legislature and the governor don't agree on a budget on time, they don't get paid until they do. Too bad we can't have national referendums, then we could pass a bill something like California's and then neither party would drag their feet on passing a budget.
While not getting paid until a budget is passed has probably had some affect, the same proposition (Prop 25 in 2010) that passed had a much more important provision - it ditched the 2/3's supermajority requirement to pass a budget. It was just nuts to let a relatively small minority of 1/3 of the legislature have so much power over the budget.
All this complaint about how the GOP is the obstructionist party and how it's hypocritical because they did all this other bad shit when they had the majority. All I hear is Democrats whining that the republitards aren't sitting by and letting them fuck up our country the way they want even though the Derps apparently sat on their hands while the R-tards did and, "that's not fair".
I knew the partisan problem in this country was big, but jesus christ guys. Wake the fuck up.
Quote from: "The Whit"All this complaint about how the GOP is the obstructionist party and how it's hypocritical because they did all this other bad shit when they had the majority. All I hear is Democrats whining that the republitards aren't sitting by and letting them fuck up our country the way they want even though the Derps apparently sat on their hands while the R-tards did and, "that's not fair".
I knew the partisan problem in this country was big, but jesus christ guys. Wake the fuck up.
So, specifically, what do you think should happen with the budget that you think wouldn't f*ck up the country?
It's as simple as passing a clean budget. The Republicans refuse to do that. Case closed.
Budget? They aren't even disscussing a budget. Congress hasn't passed a budget in years.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Budget? They aren't even disscussing a budget. Congress hasn't passed a budget in years.
What would you call it then?
A continuing resolution
Quote from: "The Whit"All this complaint about how the GOP is the obstructionist party and how it's hypocritical because they did all this other bad shit when they had the majority. All I hear is Democrats whining that the republitards aren't sitting by and letting them fuck up our country the way they want even though the Derps apparently sat on their hands while the R-tards did and, "that's not fair".
I knew the partisan problem in this country was big, but jesus christ guys. Wake the fuck up.
Oh sure all the elected officials are the same crap. That isn't even close to the truth. The Dems didn't fuck up this nation. They have continually saved it from falling off the cliff. Clinton left a surplus and "W" wasted it. Obama saved us from a recession/depression and the repukes want everyone to file bankruptcy. Every government shutdown has been the fault of the repukes.
This government can't afford to spend money on Job creation, and helping American citizens in need, and providing medical insurance to help pay for the ballooning medical costs because we need the money to go around killing people all over the world. Therefore they can't balance any budget.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I remembered something. We don't have the California government shutting down every other year since we passed a referendum saying that if the legislature and the governor don't agree on a budget on time, they don't get paid until they do. Too bad we can't have national referendums, then we could pass a bill something like California's and then neither party would drag their feet on passing a budget.
This wouldn't work. Every elected official in the federal government would wipe their tears with crisp ten thousand dollar bills before cashing their next check from what ever special interest groups have bought their votes for the week.
My view on the threatening to shut down the government... quoted from FB...
QuoteImagine if you went to work and refused to work, drank on the job (both parties are known for drinking while in session) and then threatened to shut the entire company down if you didn't get your way. That would end very well for you...
If the congressmen and senators don't want to do their jobs and threaten to shut down their business just because they didn't get their way, there should be a instant, "You're fired" law. Democracy isn't, "WAHHHHHH, I DIDN'T GET WHAT I WANT, SO NO ONE CAN HAVE ANYTHING!".
If you pull this shit, I think you should be insta-fired, regardless of party. That isn't how the gov't is suppose to work... it is infact that exact opposite of working.
Quote from: "entropy"So, specifically, what do you think should happen with the budget that you think wouldn't f*ck up the country?
Cut taxes
A lot. Eliminating some like the fuckin death tax and inheritance tax among many others.
Stop subsidizing everything but research
I would do this by giving NASA half the DoD budget.
Nationalize the Fed and stop printing money.
Inflation is the last thing we need right now.
Legalize hemp
Besides the fact that it has a multitude of uses, why the hell is this shit illegal in the first place?
Cap hospital markups on care
The reason health insurance costs so much and medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy is because it costs $550 to have an ambulance take you two miles across town to the hospital and they charge you $18 that cost them .59
Allow citizens to move their SS into another retirement program of their choice
SS is a broken program and it's payouts will exceed total tax revenue this year. If we're going to balance the budget, we've got to slaughter this pig. The details would be more complex than I could go into in a forum and might take some time to hammer out, but it MUST be done.
End the War on Drugs
Do I even....
End the War on Terror
Do I even....
The minimum wage may have to be cut as well, but that depends on how the market balances itself out when you stop throwing everything off with subsidies.
Quote from: "Jmpty"It's as simple as passing a clean budget. The Republicans refuse to do that. Case closed.
A small number of about 40 congressional GOP are holding the whole nation as hostage. Why? because they want to repeal Obamacare. Why? Ideology. You can't negotiate with radicals. I hope Obama does not give in an inch, until the GOP completely capitulates. He should veto every single bill that doesn't come as a clean budget, no riders, no earmarks.
It's nice to see that the Democrats aren't negotiating with terrorists that are trying to hold the whole country to ransom.
Never give in to an ultimatum!
What the Republicans are asking for aren't concessions that the Democrats can even consider, since they would turn the legislative process on its own head, allowing a minority of congressional politicians to rewrite laws as they see fit. What are they going to do next? Shut down the government because they don't like the existence of the EPA, HUD, or Food Stamps? This is lunacy.
Wait until we hit the raisng of the debt limit. If these issues aren't resolved, we will have such an economic downturn that 2008 will look like a walk in the park.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"What are they going to do next? Shut down the government because they don't like the existence of the EPA, HUD, or Food Stamps? This is lunacy.
I imagine some kind of hissy fit, followed by a screaming tantrum accompanied with many toys being thrown out of their pram.
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/3 ... 19301.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/reasons-government-shutdown-terrible_n_4019301.html)
11 Reasons Why A Government Shutdown Is Terrible For You
1. HUGE NUMBER OF FURLOUGHS: As many as 800,000 of the country's 2.1 million federal workers could be furloughed as the result of a shutdown.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ON HOLD: The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says that the regulator would "effectively shut down" without a deal to fund the government. The EPA wouldn't be able to pay its employees and most of its regulatory functions would be put on hold until a deal is reached.
3. DISEASE MONITORING: In the event of a shutdown, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would have to halt a critical seasonal influenza program that monitors the spread of the flu.
4. NUTRITION SUPPORT SLASHED: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, a program to provide healthy food for low-income pregnant women and new moms, would have its federal funding cut in the face of a shutdown.
5. MAKING THE BUDGET DEFICIT WORSE: Despite the Republican party's insistence on fiscal responsibility, a government shutdown would "likely add to the budget deficit," according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Ethan Harris.
6. FOOD SAFETY: Most routine FDA food safety inspections would be suspended in the case of a shutdown.
7. NO BACK PAY: Employees of one U.S. attorney have been warned that there is a "real possibility" they may not receive back pay if the government shuts down.
8. WORKPLACE SAFETY: Most Labor Department investigations into workplace safety and discrimination would cease if a deal is not reached to avert a shutdown.
9. NATIONAL PARKS, MUSEUMS (AND PANDAS!): The country's national parks would be forced to close without a government funding deal, as would Smithsonian Museums, disappointing countless potential visitors. But humans wouldn't be the only victims of a shutdown. The National Zoo would close and turn off its panda cams, which means no more livestreaming of adorable pandas.
10. STOCK MARKET PANIC: The stock market reacted negatively on Monday amidst worries about a shutdown and an upcoming fight to raise the country's debt ceiling. The lack of a resolution could mean more market madness to come.
11. DOJ DISRUPTION: Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday warned that a shutdown would have a "disruptive impact" on operations at the Justice Department. He pointed fingers at the House of Representatives and stated that there are "good, hard-working Americans who are going to suffer because of this dysfunction."
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "entropy"So, specifically, what do you think should happen with the budget that you think wouldn't f*ck up the country?
Cut taxes
A lot. Eliminating some like the fuckin death tax and inheritance tax among many others.
Stop subsidizing everything but research
I would do this by giving NASA half the DoD budget.
Nationalize the Fed and stop printing money.
Inflation is the last thing we need right now.
Legalize hemp
Besides the fact that it has a multitude of uses, why the hell is this shit illegal in the first place?
Cap hospital markups on care
The reason health insurance costs so much and medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy is because it costs $550 to have an ambulance take you two miles across town to the hospital and they charge you $18 that cost them .59
Allow citizens to move their SS into another retirement program of their choice
SS is a broken program and it's payouts will exceed total tax revenue this year. If we're going to balance the budget, we've got to slaughter this pig. The details would be more complex than I could go into in a forum and might take some time to hammer out, but it MUST be done.
End the War on Drugs
Do I even....
End the War on Terror
Do I even....
The minimum wage may have to be cut as well, but that depends on how the market balances itself out when you stop throwing everything off with subsidies.
What? Are you nuts?
SS isn't a broken program. In fact it is the most successful program in history. The only thing "broken" about it is that republicans keep stealing from it to pay for bridges to nowhere, and $1500 toilets bought from corrupt defense contractors. Moving SS into a retirement fund defeats one of the main purposes. When the market crashes or banks fail people still have a safety net not effected by capital greed and mismanagement.
I am sick and tired of hearing these screw brain ideas of republicans and conservatives attacking the social safety net and them lying and saying that program is broken. It's utter bullshit and a fucking lie!
Next you'll be saying that community college is broken.
For cryin' out loud. Get a grip on reality.
End the war on terror? Really? How would you do that exactly? Just ask all the terrorist to stop what they are doing? That isn't realistic.
Legalize Hemp? For your information "Hemp" IS legal.
The high cost of health insurance is because in 1972 the insurance companies pushed through a deregulation bill. The strongest of it's kind. They can and have operated with impunity and just like large corrupt organized crime syndicates. The cost of health is caused by insurance companies and pharmsudical companies.
As of 2008 there isn't a "Death Tax", it's left up to the states!
Funny when people constantly rant against inflation when it's been around 2-3% for the last 10 years.
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation- ... ation-rate (http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/usa-historical-inflation-rate)
It doesn't really matter who gets the blame. A year from now in November, the incumbents will get re-elected.
From://http://theweek.com/article/index/244008/if-congress-is-so-unpopular-why-do-lawmakers-keep-getting-re-elected
QuoteLast year, 90 percent of House incumbents won re-election, according to OpenSecrets, despite polls pegging Congress' approval rating at around 20 percent heading into Election Day. In 2004, voters sent fully 98 percent of incumbents back to Washington even though a majority said they disapproved of Congress' job performance.
So, you see most of the electorate doesn't really give a rat's ass about what Congress does. They vote for name recognition or team D or team R. So both parties can grandstand all they want and not worry about it.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"It doesn't really matter who gets the blame. A year from now in November, the incumbents will get re-elected.
From://http://theweek.com/article/index/244008/if-congress-is-so-unpopular-why-do-lawmakers-keep-getting-re-elected QuoteLast year, 90 percent of House incumbents won re-election, according to OpenSecrets, despite polls pegging Congress' approval rating at around 20 percent heading into Election Day. In 2004, voters sent fully 98 percent of incumbents back to Washington even though a majority said they disapproved of Congress' job performance.
So, you see most of the electorate doesn't really give a rat's ass about what Congress does. They vote for name recognition or team D or team R. So both parties can grandstand all they want and not worry about it.
The problem here is while the majority of people are not satisfied with the performance of congress as a whole, they think their own representatives are doing a good job.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"It doesn't really matter who gets the blame. A year from now in November, the incumbents will get re-elected.
From://http://theweek.com/article/index/244008/if-congress-is-so-unpopular-why-do-lawmakers-keep-getting-re-elected QuoteLast year, 90 percent of House incumbents won re-election, according to OpenSecrets, despite polls pegging Congress' approval rating at around 20 percent heading into Election Day. In 2004, voters sent fully 98 percent of incumbents back to Washington even though a majority said they disapproved of Congress' job performance.
So, you see most of the electorate doesn't really give a rat's ass about what Congress does. They vote for name recognition or team D or team R. So both parties can grandstand all they want and not worry about it.
The problem here is while the majority of people are not satisfied with the performance of congress as a whole, they think their own representatives are doing a good job.
The problem is with gerrymandering: the Republicans have fashioned their district in such a way they do not have to fear of losing to the Democrats. In fact, they mostly fear they will be primaried by someone more radical from their own. It's a perfect recipe for the radicalization of the GOP. And I don't think there are enough moderate Republicans who can offstage this situation.
PopeyesPappy wrote:
QuoteThe problem here is while the majority of people are not satisfied with the performance of congress as a whole, they think their own representatives are doing a good job.
True, because the local press gets many of their stories from the incumbent. And since the incumbent, or more likely his/her staff actually write the story it will come out showing them as heroic.
For instance, the Rep's story will be how he/she heroically stood up to the majority. The Dem's story will be how they heroically didn't give in to the unyielding minority.
Thus, the congressional incumbents will most likely be re-elected, no matter what they do. Well, murdering your pregnant intern might get you booted out, but they don't get caught doing that very often.
josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteThe problem is with gerrymandering: the Republicans have fashioned their district in such a way they do not have to fear of losing to the Democrats.
You sound like you don't think the Democrats have ever done the same thing. Whichever party is in power at the time when the boundaries need drawn, do the drawing. Which in most cases is the Democrat party, since they tend to be in power more often then the Republicans.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteThe problem is with gerrymandering: the Republicans have fashioned their district in such a way they do not have to fear of losing to the Democrats.
You sound like you don't think the Democrats have ever done the same thing. Whichever party is in power at the time when the boundaries need drawn, do the drawing. Which in most cases is the Democrat party, since they tend to be in power more often then the Republicans.
Not true. The fact is that Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersy, Michegan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Texas and most if not all the southern states have been systematically gerrymandered by the republicans. Therefore we have people that are elected at the local level, House reps, that are radicalized. They don't fear being opposed by a fair election with a Dem. They only fear being primaried out by a tea party radical.
Until the districts are redrawn fairly the dynamics of the House will not change. The republicans will be consumed by more and more radical reps that win the local primaries but are completely out of touch with reality and this nation.
And that's why it isn't the fault of the Dems for this partisan bickering.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteThe problem is with gerrymandering: the Republicans have fashioned their district in such a way they do not have to fear of losing to the Democrats.
You sound like you don't think the Democrats have ever done the same thing. Whichever party is in power at the time when the boundaries need drawn, do the drawing. Which in most cases is the Democrat party, since they tend to be in power more often then the Republicans.
Not true. The fact is that Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersy, Michegan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Texas and most if not all the southern states have been systematically gerrymandered by the republicans. Therefore we have people that are elected at the local level, House reps, that are radicalized. They don't fear being opposed by a fair election with a Dem. They only fear being primaried out by a tea party radical.
Until the districts are redrawn fairly the dynamics of the House will not change. The republicans will be consumed by more and more radical reps that win the local primaries but are completely out of touch with reality and this nation.
And that's why it isn't the fault of the Dems for this partisan bickering.
Gerrymandering is a worldwide phenomenon. But in particular in the US, it was enshrined by the SCOTUS in 2006 in a landmark decision in the case of the state of Texas, allowing state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like. And since the majority of states are in the hands of the GOP governors, and control nearly five times as many districts as Democrats, the GOP has had a greater hand at it.
As far as Democrats never Gerrymandering, I only need one example to show they do.
Here it is://http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/8251/hyperpartisan-democratic-texas-gerrymander
The Democrats are not God-like. They are humans like the rest of us. Party bickering goes on so as to fool the country into believing we have some say in what goes on. We don't. Get over it or do something about it. Just quit with the Democrat worship. They will change nothing of significance. They get their orders from the same people that give the Republicans their orders.
why the republican should be blamed? because they fucking planned this shit all along, right before 2010 take over of the house.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/0 ... l=facebook (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/01/1242940/-Rachel-Maddow-Republican-Shutdown-Evil-And-Planned-VIDEO?detail=facebook)
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"why the republican should be blamed? because they fucking planned this shit all along, right before 2010 take over of the house.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/0 ... l=facebook (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/01/1242940/-Rachel-Maddow-Republican-Shutdown-Evil-And-Planned-VIDEO?detail=facebook)
Good post, HBA. Yet there are some who still believe that both parties are to be blamed. Go figure.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"why the republican should be blamed? because they fucking planned this shit all along, right before 2010 take over of the house.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/0 ... l=facebook (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/01/1242940/-Rachel-Maddow-Republican-Shutdown-Evil-And-Planned-VIDEO?detail=facebook)
And why? If they had a good reason (good for ultraconservatives, at least) it would be understandable. Not forgivable, but understandable. But to do it just to do it? That smacks of sedition, which even a congressperson shouldn't be immune from being charged with.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteThe problem is with gerrymandering: the Republicans have fashioned their district in such a way they do not have to fear of losing to the Democrats.
You sound like you don't think the Democrats have ever done the same thing. Whichever party is in power at the time when the boundaries need drawn, do the drawing. Which in most cases is the Democrat party, since they tend to be in power more often then the Republicans.
Watch out. JP thinks that's a racist comment.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Good post, HBA. Yet there are some who still believe that both parties are to be blamed. Go figure.
Latest opinion polls show that the majority of voters are pissed off with the republicans dicking about. (//http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958)
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Good post, HBA. Yet there are some who still believe that both parties are to be blamed. Go figure.
Latest opinion polls show that the majority of voters are pissed off with the republicans dicking about. (//http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958)
Thanks for the link. The numbers are quite revealing:
QuoteAmerican voters oppose 72 - 22 percent Congress shutting down the federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Voters also oppose 64 - 27 percent blocking an increase in the nation's debt ceiling as a way to stop Obamacare, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
American voters are divided on Obamacare, with 45 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed, but they are opposed 58 - 34 percent to Congress cutting off funding for the health care law to stop its implementation.
Republicans support the federal government shutdown by a narrow 49 - 44 percent margin, but opposition is 90 - 6 percent among Democrats and 74 - 19 percent among independent voters.
The problem with the GOP, and in particular the Tea Party, is that their position is not based on reality, but on an ideology. Also they know that once Obamacare is fully implemented, the American people are going to like it, and for many, this will be a game changer making them to vote for the Democrats for a lifetime-- in the same way that Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the South switch from Democrats to Republicans. So it's going to get uglier and uglier.
Yes, the Republicans should be blamed for government shutdown. But, they are counting on the short attention span of the electorate. With justification.
josephpalazzo wrote in part:
Quotein the same way that Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the South switch from Democrats to Republicans.
This is what I am talking about. Proportionately, 3 times as many Democrats voted against the 1964 civil rights act than Republicans. LBJ could not have gotten the bill passed without Republican help, despite having a Democratic majority in both houses.
//http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110314173026AAyZOF8
QuoteIn both the house AND senate there were 3 times as many Dems voting against the civil rights act versus Republicans despite there being less than twice as many Dems. If you break the party down by percentage the Democrats had a MUCH higher ratio voting against the Civil Rights Act of 64 than the Republicans.
It was Nixon who decided to forget the black vote and concentrate on getting the southern white vote. Just politics as usual.
It is a lie that the Democrats got the 1964 civil rights act passed despite Republican opposition. LBJ's opposition was his own party.
The first civil rights act of 1957 was opposed by many of the Democrats. In the Senate the votes were 43 Rep's and 29 Dem's for, and O Rep's against and 18 Dem's against.
But, this act seems to always be overlooked, because it happened during a Republican administration. But, voters forget the past. So, we get politics as usual.
On the question:
which do you prefer, the affordable healthcare or Obamacare?
2-to-1 chose the afffordable healthcare??!!?
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"On the question:
which do you prefer, the affordable healthcare or Obamacare?
2-to-1 chose the afffordable healthcare??!!?
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
"muricans is smart.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"On the question:
which do you prefer, the affordable healthcare or Obamacare?
2-to-1 chose the afffordable healthcare??!!?
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
"muricans is smart.
At least smart enough to make a checkmark on a piece of paper. (Maybe if they had used chads, people would have chosen both.)
I once tried slapping the stupid out of a Republican. All I wound up with was a sprained wrist and a gallon of drool on the floor.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteThe problem is with gerrymandering: the Republicans have fashioned their district in such a way they do not have to fear of losing to the Democrats.
You sound like you don't think the Democrats have ever done the same thing. Whichever party is in power at the time when the boundaries need drawn, do the drawing. Which in most cases is the Democrat party, since they tend to be in power more often then the Republicans.
Surely there must be a way to measure the degree of gerrymandering present in the last election. Say, by comparing the number of votes a Democratic candidate would have needed to get elected to the votes a Republican candidate would have needed in any given state. I know I saw something that gave those statistics for a handful of states, but I don't remember where I saw it.
Right now, according to Huffpost, they have the votes to pass a clean bill and end it. But Boehner is not introducing the bill to the floor. So we've gone from a group of pinhead Tea Party reps to one man holding up the show. As a former Defense Department employee, I was there when the one happened in '95. I can tell you there are some very angry people in the government right now, and Boehner is an absolute fool in my book.
QuoteCNNMoney.com ?@CNNMoney 2h
Fear of a looming U.S. default takes toll on stocks. Dow ends 64 points lower. Nasdaq and S&P fall 0.1%
I wonder, if someone knew when the looming U.S. default might end, could they make a bunch in the stock market? Maybe a little inside trading with the Speaker of the House and you could make millions if you had enough money to start with. Could this be the whole reason for what is going on. Just speculating.
Quote from: "Valigarmander"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteThe problem is with gerrymandering: the Republicans have fashioned their district in such a way they do not have to fear of losing to the Democrats.
You sound like you don't think the Democrats have ever done the same thing. Whichever party is in power at the time when the boundaries need drawn, do the drawing. Which in most cases is the Democrat party, since they tend to be in power more often then the Republicans.
Surely there must be a way to measure the degree of gerrymandering present in the last election. Say, by comparing the number of votes a Democratic candidate would have needed to get elected to the votes a Republican candidate would have needed in any given state. I know I saw something that gave those statistics for a handful of states, but I don't remember where I saw it.
In the last election, even though the Republican took the House of Representatives, the Democrats got 1 million MORE votes than the Republicans. So when the GOP is saying they represent the American people, they are lying.
The GOP is totally fucked.
This is one of the worst PR stunts they've ever pulled. Now that they realize just how unpopular and obvious it is to the public what they're doing, they've done a full reversal and are now blaming Reid and the senate for the shut down. It's all blown up in their face and so they're hoping that people can be convinced that the Dems are to blame, but the damage is done and everybody knows who's at fault, and they will pay dearly in 2014.
:Hangman: :Hangman: :Hangman:
We always hear about "Chicago style politics!", well threatening to make other people pay is Dallas TX style politics.
It seems to me that the Republican party has become so fragmented and coopted that the only support they have left is the far right wing loonies. While there are still plenty of those, they are slipping as a viable party among swing voters, and looking at hard times ahead. They can't propose anything that makes sense enough to win over the crucial swing vote right now, because the loonies are so focused on their own perception of themselves as self righteous victims.
Their only hope is to stubbornly refuse to compromise on anything and stop any forward progress that might occur while a Democrat is in the White House. They don't seek to destroy America, at least not in the long term, but currently, it's in their best interests to make such a mess out of government and the country that Americans will suffer severely, and enough independents will eventually vote Republican out of confused despair.
Clearly, this is not about moving America forward, it's about regaining power, regaining power at any cost no matter how much harms the country. What else can you do when you are so hamstrung by the extremists in your own party?
Quote from: "SGOS"It seems to me that the Republican party has become so fragmented and coopted that the only support they have left is the far right wing loonies. While there are still plenty of those, they are slipping as a viable party among swing voters, and looking at hard times ahead. They can't propose anything that makes sense enough to win over the crucial swing vote right now, because the loonies are so focused on their own perception of themselves as self righteous victims.
Their only hope is to stubbornly refuse to compromise on anything and stop any forward progress that might occur while a Democrat is in the White House. They don't seek to destroy America, at least not in the long term, but currently, it's in their best interests to make such a mess out of government and the country that Americans will suffer severely, and enough independents will eventually vote Republican out of confused despair.
Clearly, this is not about moving America forward, it's about regaining power, regaining power at any cost no matter how much harms the country. What else can you do when you are so hamstrung by the extremists in your own party?
Yeah, good luck with that is all I can say.
Thankfully, you can't win in this country by simply winning Texas, Arizona, and south eastern states. You
have to win some swing states and places out west with at least some support from the north. Right now, the right has no fucking hope whatsoever of that happening, not just in this next election, but for some elections to come.
And eventually, a lot of people are going to like ACA like people now like Medicare, which is going to make these idiots look even worse because of all the fear mongering and scare tactics they used to try to stonewall. So they're left in the position of trying to look good to their base and be exposed as playing politics, in order to prevent a party divide that's even worse than what they have.
Quote from: "JamesTheUnjust"Quote from: "SGOS"It seems to me that the Republican party has become so fragmented and coopted that the only support they have left is the far right wing loonies. While there are still plenty of those, they are slipping as a viable party among swing voters, and looking at hard times ahead. They can't propose anything that makes sense enough to win over the crucial swing vote right now, because the loonies are so focused on their own perception of themselves as self righteous victims.
Their only hope is to stubbornly refuse to compromise on anything and stop any forward progress that might occur while a Democrat is in the White House. They don't seek to destroy America, at least not in the long term, but currently, it's in their best interests to make such a mess out of government and the country that Americans will suffer severely, and enough independents will eventually vote Republican out of confused despair.
Clearly, this is not about moving America forward, it's about regaining power, regaining power at any cost no matter how much harms the country. What else can you do when you are so hamstrung by the extremists in your own party?
Yeah, good luck with that is all I can say.
Thankfully, you can't win in this country by simply winning Texas, Arizona, and south eastern states. You have to win some swing states and places out west with at least some support from the north. Right now, the right has no fucking hope whatsoever of that happening, not just in this next election, but for some elections to come.
You would think so, but it seems to me that the tide turns faster than one would expect. I thought Nixon had destroyed the Republican party for years, but after only four years of the Carter Administration, they charged back with Reagan, who still looms as memorable president, if not a very good one, and the Republicans controlled the White House for 12 years. Republicans are in a bind at the moment, but they have proven to be very resilient over the years, and as strategists, they are not stupid.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "JamesTheUnjust"Quote from: "SGOS"It seems to me that the Republican party has become so fragmented and coopted that the only support they have left is the far right wing loonies. While there are still plenty of those, they are slipping as a viable party among swing voters, and looking at hard times ahead. They can't propose anything that makes sense enough to win over the crucial swing vote right now, because the loonies are so focused on their own perception of themselves as self righteous victims.
Their only hope is to stubbornly refuse to compromise on anything and stop any forward progress that might occur while a Democrat is in the White House. They don't seek to destroy America, at least not in the long term, but currently, it's in their best interests to make such a mess out of government and the country that Americans will suffer severely, and enough independents will eventually vote Republican out of confused despair.
Clearly, this is not about moving America forward, it's about regaining power, regaining power at any cost no matter how much harms the country. What else can you do when you are so hamstrung by the extremists in your own party?
Yeah, good luck with that is all I can say.
Thankfully, you can't win in this country by simply winning Texas, Arizona, and south eastern states. You have to win some swing states and places out west with at least some support from the north. Right now, the right has no fucking hope whatsoever of that happening, not just in this next election, but for some elections to come.
You would think so, but it seems to me that the tide turns faster than one would expect. I thought Nixon had destroyed the Republican party for years, but after only four years of the Carter Administration, they charged back with Reagan, who still looms as memorable president, if not a very good one, and the Republicans controlled the White House for 12 years. Republicans are in a bind at the moment, but they have proven to be very resilient over the years, and as strategists, they are not stupid.
Nixon was bad PR no doubt but the politics and motivations in Watergate didn't implicate the Republican party as whole - and to be far it's kinda true. The biggest problem with Watergate was that Ford pardoned Nixon for his crimes and that was, in my opinion, what really made the Republican party look bad. Reagan and Bush Sr simply took advantage of what was social unrest at the time, creating hysteria concerning the preservation of religious creeds, and it paid bank. That's why they started the counter culture programs on drugs, porn, gambling, rock music, and the FCC. They wanted to suck in old timers that believed in authoritarian solutions to what they saw as cultural problems.
Obama and the Democrats are actually taking advantage of this themselves. They've got people now with gay children that they openly accept, the war on drugs is becoming very unpopular, and those people that used to vote for the religious right having been aging/dying for years now. Lets not forget that America has become very disenchanted with militarism and does not wish to see Pentagon politics run the show anymore, so the Democrats have a lot on their side right now.
SGOS wrote in part:
QuoteIt seems to me that the Republican party has become so fragmented and coopted that the only support they have left is the far right wing loonies.
Actually, many of us right wing loonies left the Republican Party during the Nixon administration, because of the crab he pulled, not because of Watergate. Some formed the Libertarian Party and many of us joined it. Then the real loonies got control of it, and many like myself said to hell with it and just don't bother with politics anymore. There really doesn't seem to be that much difference to us which Democans and Republicrats are in power. Neither serve the masses in this country. Though the Democans do have better rhetoric.
Still, I have confidence in the American voting public. They will not remember this a year from now, and will be swayed by what ever happens next October. And they sure as hell won't remember in 2016.
Quote from: "mykcob4"SS isn't a broken program. In fact it is the most successful program in history...Moving SS into a retirement fund defeats one of the main purposes. When the market crashes or banks fail people still have a safety net not effected by capital greed and mismanagement...
You say that, but you put this gem right in the middle of it.
QuoteThe only thing "broken" about it is that republicans keep stealing from it to pay for bridges to nowhere, and $1500 toilets bought from corrupt defense contractors.
(//https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2727748211/c3d0981ae770f926eedf4eda7505b006.jpeg)
As far as the War on Terror I say we just pack up our shit and leave. What's the worst that happens? Our troops stop driving through ambushes? Our drones stop killing kids? We save trillions of dollars on bombs and ammo? They go back to killing each other?
The answer to the question in the subject line is painfully obvious:
Because they did it.
Quote from: "JamesTheUnjust"Quote from: "SGOS"It seems to me that the Republican party has become so fragmented and coopted that the only support they have left is the far right wing loonies. While there are still plenty of those, they are slipping as a viable party among swing voters, and looking at hard times ahead. They can't propose anything that makes sense enough to win over the crucial swing vote right now, because the loonies are so focused on their own perception of themselves as self righteous victims.
Their only hope is to stubbornly refuse to compromise on anything and stop any forward progress that might occur while a Democrat is in the White House. They don't seek to destroy America, at least not in the long term, but currently, it's in their best interests to make such a mess out of government and the country that Americans will suffer severely, and enough independents will eventually vote Republican out of confused despair.
Clearly, this is not about moving America forward, it's about regaining power, regaining power at any cost no matter how much harms the country. What else can you do when you are so hamstrung by the extremists in your own party?
Yeah, good luck with that is all I can say.
Thankfully, you can't win in this country by simply winning Texas, Arizona, and south eastern states. You have to win some swing states and places out west with at least some support from the north. Right now, the right has no fucking hope whatsoever of that happening, not just in this next election, but for some elections to come.
And eventually, a lot of people are going to like ACA like people now like Medicare, which is going to make these idiots look even worse because of all the fear mongering and scare tactics they used to try to stonewall. So they're left in the position of trying to look good to their base and be exposed as playing politics, in order to prevent a party divide that's even worse than what they have.
The GOP are MASTERS at LYING. And when I say that I don't mean your run-of-the-mill bending of the ruth that just about every politician must have some skill with, but devious, deceiving, outright lies. And there are too many Americans who fall for their tricks. And so not having been punished at elections, the GOP has developped this immunity that gives them all the confidence to continue along with what we see is happening.
Quote from: "The Whit"As far as the War on Terror I say we just pack up our shit and leave. What's the worst that happens? We save trillions of dollars on bombs and ammo? They go back to killing each other?
Classic libertarian retardation. Who cares what happens as long as we can avoid acts of coercion and save money? Who cares if people suffer/die in the long run? Who cares about any consequences whatsoever as long as we can boost the economy and avoid using government? SMH SMH SMH. There's also a clear indication of tribalism here in that you care more about our people than their people. Everyone's well-being should be sought after unconditionally. Whatever makes the best results for people everywhere, regardless of subjective distaste such as govt. use or coercion, should be the end result sought after. (Not saying war accomplishes this, but sticking your head in the sand and ignoring problems through isolationism is just as bad).
NatsuTerran wrote:
QuoteClassic libertarian retardation. Who cares what happens as long as we can avoid acts of coercion and save money? Who cares if people suffer/die in the long run? Who cares about any consequences whatsoever as long as we can boost the economy and avoid using government? SMH SMH SMH. There's also a clear indication of tribalism here in that you care more about our people than their people. Everyone's well-being should be sought after unconditionally. Whatever makes the best results for people everywhere, regardless of subjective distaste such as govt. use or coercion, should be the end result sought after. (Not saying war accomplishes this, but sticking your head in the sand and ignoring problems through isolationism is just as bad).
Classic Neo-Con Hegemony retardation. Rule the world for its' own good. Play Big-Brother to those who don't want a Big-Brother. Kill 100,000 to make sure the bad guy suffers. And don't worry about the economy, if will be fine as soon as the leader nationalizes business' and puts a five year plan in place.
Quote from: "The Whit"As far as the War on Terror I say we just pack up our shit and leave. What's the worst that happens? Our troops stop driving through ambushes? Our drones stop killing kids? We save trillions of dollars on bombs and ammo? They go back to killing each other?
What the fuck does the war on terror have to do with what's going on in DC now? Nothing as best I can tell. The fight is over budgets and the ACA not the WOT. Try again and good luck.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"QuoteFear of a looming U.S. default takes toll on stocks. Dow ends 64 points lower. Nasdaq and S&P fall 0.1%
I wonder, if someone knew when the looming U.S. default might end, could they make a bunch in the stock market?
Just buy call options for the more sensitive stocks with the right expiration date, and rent a railroad to carry your money. (Not a single car, a whole railroad company, because you'll need it.) The secret, of course, is knowing the date the stocks will surge upward. Then you buy them at the option price (which, if you buy the option when the price is depressed, will be pretty low) and immediately sell them at the then increased price. Or, if you bought an expiration date a few days after the prices surged, sell the options themselves. (Sometimes the options make more than the underlying stocks do.)
Colanth, obviously you know how its' done. You aren't by chance a buddy of Boehner's, are you?
Seriously though, would the Speaker of the House screw around with millions in the country just to make his friends a few million dollars? I mean we are talking about the Speaker of the House. No Speaker of the House puts his own self interests above the good of the country. It is against the law and everything. And he is risking his $174,000 a year job, by not getting re-elected. Even if some corporation was offer him a million dollar a year job, he still wouldn't do it. It would just be wrong. People elected to office can't do what isn't right, so it must all be about ideology. #-o :wink:
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "The Whit"As far as the War on Terror I say we just pack up our shit and leave. What's the worst that happens? Our troops stop driving through ambushes? Our drones stop killing kids? We save trillions of dollars on bombs and ammo? They go back to killing each other?
What the fuck does the war on terror have to do with what's going on in DC now? Nothing as best I can tell. The fight is over budgets and the ACA not the WOT. Try again and good luck.
The debt ceiling is definitely going to be a major issue in the coming days that's going to throw in another dimension of bullshit. That The WOT contributes to this considerably.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "The Whit"As far as the War on Terror I say we just pack up our shit and leave. What's the worst that happens? Our troops stop driving through ambushes? Our drones stop killing kids? We save trillions of dollars on bombs and ammo? They go back to killing each other?
What the fuck does the war on terror have to do with what's going on in DC now? Nothing as best I can tell. The fight is over budgets and the ACA not the WOT. Try again and good luck.
What does the prohibitively expensive and pointless (at best) war on terror have to do with arguments over the budget?
Seriously?
It's a separate argument. I shouldn't have to point this out.
Seems to me like it's one of the huge drains on the budget, and ending it might fix part of the budget issues.
Hey, I happen to agree ending the sham war on terror as a money grab is a good idea, but so are farm bills, transportation bills and on and on, but right now this whole fight began over defunding the ACA. The senate won't budge, the president won't, house rubes know they lost their gambit and now we're stuck.
It has nothing to do with the war on terror or even the war on drugs.
You can play the rube game and try to muddy the waters, but we know what this is about.
Ah, yeah I agree with that part. This whole mess started with ACA.
Quote from: "Plu"Seems to me like it's one of the huge drains on the budget, and ending it might fix part of the budget issues.
QuoteThe final tally of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan will reach at least $3.7 trillion, and could go as high as $4.4 trillion, according to a study done by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. Borrowing the money needed to fight the wars will cost an estimated additional $1 trillion through 2020, according to the study.
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2011/06/29/the-5 ... z2glkF8coo (http://nation.time.com/2011/06/29/the-5-trillion-war-on-terror/#ixzz2glkF8coo)
Then again, we don't know what the cost would have been had we not fought those wars. It's like having an alarm system. You know the cost of that. But how do you gauge the cost if you hadn't as you don't know how many home invasions the alarm system prevented.
Six months ago, Boehner promised Reid that if Reid could get the Democrats in the Senate to agree to a budget amount that was close to the amount in the budget the House passed (the Ryan budget), then he would make sure the House Republican caucus would vote for the Senate bill. Reid twisted arms and got liberal Democrats in the Senate to swallow hard and vote for what is essentially a Paul Ryan level budget. When it came time for Boehner to deliver on his promise, he couldn't get the Republican House caucus to go along with what he had agreed with Reid to do. Instead, they decided to go after defunding the ACA which will not help reduce the budget (doing so would probably make the budget deficit slightly worse).
After Boehner didn't follow through quickly on his promise to have the House vote to pass the Senate bill, for six months after passing their budget bill the Senate asked over 80 different times for the House to form a joint committee to hash out a budget. The House refused. Now that the government is shut down, the House Republicans are all of the sudden saying, "Hey, let's have a joint committee" and saying they are SO willing to negotiate and that the Democrats are the ones who don't want to negotiate and compromise. But the Democrats already have made significant compromises and the time for what should be unneeded additional negotiations was six months ago, when there was adequate time for give and take discussions. The Republicans in the House didn't want that - they wanted the leverage of a crisis of their own making. They screwed up and now they need to pass a resolution to keep the government going. There are enough Republicans who would vote to do that along with the Democrats in the House. Boehner should allow that vote.
Quote from: "entropy"Six months ago, Boehner promised Reid that if Reid could get the Democrats in the Senate to agree to a budget amount that was close to the amount in the budget the House passed (the Ryan budget), then he would make sure the House Republican caucus would vote for the Senate bill. Reid twisted arms and got liberal Democrats in the Senate to swallow hard and vote for what is essentially a Paul Ryan level budget. When it came time for Boehner to deliver on his promise, he couldn't get the Republican House caucus to go along with what he had agreed with Reid to do. Instead, they decided to go after defunding the ACA which will not help reduce the budget (doing so would probably make the budget deficit slightly worse).
After Boehner didn't follow through quickly on his promise to have the House vote to pass the Senate bill, for six months after passing their budget bill the Senate asked over 80 different times for the House to form a joint committee to hash out a budget. The House refused. Now that the government is shut down, the House Republicans are all of the sudden saying, "Hey, let's have a joint committee" and saying they are SO willing to negotiate and that the Democrats are the ones who don't want to negotiate and compromise. But the Democrats already have made significant compromises and the time for what should be unneeded additional negotiations was six months ago, when there was adequate time for give and take discussions. The Republicans in the House didn't want that - they wanted the leverage of a crisis of their own making. They screwed up and now they need to pass a resolution to keep the government going. There are enough Republicans who would vote to do that along with the Democrats in the House. Boehner should allow that vote.
As I have said before, and will say again: the Republicans are MASTERS at LYING. This is just one more incident among many where they deliberately lie and lie. Even when they are confronted by the media, they counter with their own ( HINT: FoxNews). First, in the early shutdown, they said repeatedly, program after program, that the sky didn't fall -- Boo Obama for scaring everyone. Now they lament that veterans couldn't visit their favorite museums. Of course, all the fault of the "liberal" shutdown.
See Jon Stewart on some of the faux outrage by the GOP: http://aattp.org/must-see-jon-stewart-e ... americans/ (http://aattp.org/must-see-jon-stewart-explodes-tells-fox-news-fck-you-for-mocking-poor-americans/)
Here's another lie from the nutjobs on the right. The polls at Fox News showed this on who is to blame for the shutdown:
•25%: Republican leaders, such as John Boehner
•17%: Tea Party Republicans, such as Ted Cruz
•8%: Democratic leaders, such as Harry Reid
•24%: President Barack Obama
•20%: (All/Combination)
•5%: (Don't know)
So the headline was: "Americans blame Democrats as much as Republicans", never mentioning that the tea party in Congress is part of the GOP. So actually, it's 42% for the Republicans vs 32% for the Democrats.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Colanth, obviously you know how its' done. You aren't by chance a buddy of Boehner's, are you?
Seriously though, would the Speaker of the House screw around with millions in the country just to make his friends a few million dollars? I mean we are talking about the Speaker of the House.
<snip more of the same>
Quote#-o :wink:
I was going to respond to this in a serious manner. Almost got me.
Colanth wrote in part:
QuoteI was going to respond to this in a serious manner. Almost got me.
Darn. And I was so close. 8-[
Rand Paul says that the shutdown is a temporary inconvenience necessary to achieve necessary reductions in the budget deficit:
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/10/02/r ... nvenience/ (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/10/02/rand-paul-shutdown-about-more-than-temporary-inconvenience/)
Quote"I think I was elected to stand up and say, 'You know what, the emperor has no clothes,'" Paul said. "And we have to point that out. So really when people get caught up in the shutdown, I try to tell them, 'Well look, this isn't just about a shutdown. This isn't just about temporary inconveniences of the government shutdown. This is about whether or not a society or a civilization can borrow a trillion dollars every year without ramifications.'"
So, hundreds of thousands of people are left wondering if they will get the check they need to avoid some significant hardship (not to mention the myriad other difficulties that come from shutting down the government) and that's a "temporary inconvenience"?
Aside from that patrician attitude, there are a lot other problems with what he is saying here. He is claiming that the shutdown is necessary to force the Democrats into getting rid of the ACA because of budget deficits. But getting rid of the ACA will not reduce the budget deficit. So this is either a gross misunderstanding of something that is essential to his argument - IOW, he is being incompetent here - or he is being disingenuous (or, as josephpalazzo might say, "he's lying" :wink:). He says that we are having budget deficits of a trillion dollars every year but the budget deficit for this year is ~$750 billion. The deficit this year is ~$400 billion less than last year. The deficit last year was ~$200 billion dollars less than the year before. And here's the real kicker - the Democratically controlled Senate passed a bill that would fund the government at only a bit above the levels that were in the bill that the Republican controlled House passed. So if the Republicans had passed the Senate bill in unchanged form, the budget deficit would have been only a little bit higher than it would have been if the Senate had passed the House budget bill.
This whole shutdown show isn't really about the budget deficit! What it is about is that the House Republicans want shut down the government and then add back just the pieces they want. It's not about the amount of the budget deficit, it's about the House Republicans wanting to be able to throttle all the regulatory and social programs they don't want and increase funding for some programs like defense that they favor. I'm not saying that they don't care about budget deficits but that in this case their actions have not been about reducing the budget deficit significantly, what they are doing is about causing all this angst just so that they can strangle government activities THEY don't like while they are more than happy to open the funding spigot for government activities they like. In this case, a lot of people are being hurt because the House Republicans have chosen this particular tactic to gain more political power to impose their priorities. To impose their priorities, not to reduce the budget deficit.
What's worst of all is that we are overly worrying about the size of the budget deficit in the short run - the empirical evidence from the performance of economies that went deeply into austerity mode, compared to economies that did not, strongly shows that austerity really holds back economic activity. But I guess that's a whole other topic...
Quote from: "entropy"This whole shutdown show isn't really about the budget deficit! What it is about is that the House Republicans want shut down the government and then add back just the pieces they want. It's not about the amount of the budget deficit, it's about the House Republicans wanting to be able to throttle all the regulatory and social programs they don't want and increase funding for some programs like defense that they favor. I'm not saying that they don't care about budget deficits but that in this case their actions have not been about reducing the budget deficit significantly, what they are doing is about causing all this angst just so that they can strangle government activities THEY don't like while they are more than happy to open the funding spigot for government activities they like.
IOW, the shutdown is just a different method of doing what they've been doing for about 35 years. So nothing's changed. They're still screwing us, but this time, instead of using a slot-head screw, they're using a Philips-head screw. Don't worry, though - we're going to get just as screwed.
Quote from: "Colanth"IOW, the shutdown is just a different method of doing what they've been doing for about 35 years. So nothing's changed.
But this method has much more dramatic consequences for a lot of people that the other more frequently used tactics do not. And if the Republicans are successful in using this tactic - and especially if they are successful at getting the Democrats to cave to their demands by using the debt limit to take the world economy hostage - then these kinds of tactics will become common. Why not use it more - it works! The Democrats would be dumb not to use these tactics when they have the chance if Republicans are successful using them now. The Republicans being successful with these tactics now would set an extremely bad precedent that you can be sure would be used again and again. The political system would become much more dysfunctional than it has been over the last several decades (which, I agree, has been plenty bad enough).
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Here's another lie from the nutjobs on the right. The polls at Fox News showed this on who is to blame for the shutdown:
•25%: Republican leaders, such as John Boehner
•17%: Tea Party Republicans, such as Ted Cruz
•8%: Democratic leaders, such as Harry Reid
•24%: President Barack Obama
•20%: (All/Combination)
•5%: (Don't know)
So the headline was: "Americans blame Democrats as much as Republicans", never mentioning that the tea party in Congress is part of the GOP. So actually, it's 42% for the Republicans vs 32% for the Democrats.
This poll changes pretty frequently, they're trying to measure the change over time... not present one poll as definitive.
Also, there is kind of a rift in the republican party. Conservatives and Neo-Cons are not as accepting of the Tea Party republicans yet... and are very willing to turn on them on a moments notice. Politically they're cautious about jumping on board... so I think separating them into two categories makes sense.
Quote from: "entropy"Quote from: "Colanth"IOW, the shutdown is just a different method of doing what they've been doing for about 35 years. So nothing's changed.
But this method has much more dramatic consequences for a lot of people that the other more frequently used tactics do not. And if the Republicans are successful in using this tactic - and especially if they are successful at getting the Democrats to cave to their demands by using the debt limit to take the world economy hostage - then these kinds of tactics will become common. Why not use it more - it works! The Democrats would be dumb not to use these tactics when they have the chance if Republicans are successful using them now. The Republicans being successful with these tactics now would set an extremely bad precedent that you can be sure would be used again and again. The political system would become much more dysfunctional than it has been over the last several decades (which, I agree, has been plenty bad enough).
Now the discussion is around the Dems giving some concessions so that the GOP won't lose face. Someone should tell these idiots we don't live in China. :twisted:
My wife spotted this on Facebook. I'm paraphrasing.
1: "Can we discuss my burning your house down?"
2: "NO!"
1: "Then can we discuss my burning down just the second floor?"
2: "NO!"
1: "Then can we discuss which part of your house I CAN burn down?"
2: "NO!"
1: "You're not compromising!!!"
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
The narrative that Democrats don't want to compromise is a ruse. To get a budget past Republicans in the Senate they already had to compromise. In fact, they compromised all the way to agreeing to the spending levels the Republicans wanted (just not on the spending priorities). The Republicans may not have voted for the bill, but the bill would have never gotten past a filibuster if they Republicans in the Senate hadn't voted to allow the vote on the bill to proceed. (That's right, Senators can not only filibuster to not allow a direct vote on a bill, they can filibuster the process of bringing the bill up for a vote.) Boehner agreed that he would have a "clean" vote (no amendments) in the House on the Senate bill if the Democrats agreed to the funding levels the Republicans wanted. That was a huge compromise on the part of Democrats. If Boehner had followed through on what he promised, we would not be having this mess now.
But then Cruz decided that there was political advantage for him to throw a monkey-wrench in the whole thing. He started pushing the House Republicans to insist on dropping Obamacare as a condition to voting for the budget (with funding well below what the Democrats wanted). The Tea Party House Republicans followed his lead. Arguing to hold the budget vote hostage to get rid of Obamacare was a loser just like most people expected. Cruz is a really smart guy, but it's hard to know whether or not the evaporation of support for the getting rid of Obamacare condition was something he factored into his tactics or not. I suspect he did know that would happen and his next planned move was then to have the House put forth micro-budget bills funding just little parts of the government. It's a clever move because then the House Republicans could then basically determine the whole shape of the government by putting it back together one piece at a time to their liking. The idea was to sell this piecemeal approach as being one of the Republicans being open to negotiation and compromise and the Democrats would either have to go along or be seen as not wanting to compromise.
But for that tactic to work, it has to rely on people not realizing that the Democrats already did a large compromise. It's like, "see, the Democrats don't want to give up anything, we're the one's open to compromise" - even though they refused to meet with joint committee with the Democrats for six months after the Senate passed its compromise budget. I think understanding that goes a long way toward understanding why there is so much strength to the Democratic resistance to what the Republicans are trying to do now.
So I would say that what's going on is more like the somebody threatening to burn down your house and you agree to give up a lot of the furniture inside the house for them to not burn down the house and then they try to conveniently forget that you gave up your furniture and are now saying that if you don't let them burn down at least part of the house, then you aren't willing to compromise.
The crass, petty, vindictive, creepy, anti-people Master of the Shutdown (//http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/10/08/the-crass-petty-vindictive-creepy-anti-people-master-of-the-shutdown/)
The Shutdown Government: Powerful, Punitive And Petty (//http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/08/the-shutdown-government-powerful-punitive-and-petty/)
With only a small portion of the government actually shut down (who knew the drug war was an essential service?) the choices of what to shut down and what to keep open (executive choices) seem designed to cause as much pain to the average person as possible.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"The crass, petty, vindictive, creepy, anti-people Master of the Shutdown (//http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/10/08/the-crass-petty-vindictive-creepy-anti-people-master-of-the-shutdown/)
The Shutdown Government: Powerful, Punitive And Petty (//http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/08/the-shutdown-government-powerful-punitive-and-petty/)
With only a small portion of the government actually shut down (who knew the drug war was an essential service?) the choices of what to shut down and what to keep open (executive choices) seem designed to cause as much pain to the average person as possible.
Yeah, they want us to know how miserable we would be without them. :-D
Actually, I did get my SSI check today. I went grocery shopping figuring I better while I still could. But, we should be able to make it another month now. Just saying.