Well, our congress can wrack up it's first death as a result of this ludicrous governance by shutting down government. I would not be surprised if this woman was facing total ruin because of this callous disregard of congress' mandate to "serve the people". How much longer before we start calling these 30 or 40 anarchists who are responsible for this intentional disaster as "seditionists"?Really? Blaming some in Congress? :roll: I would not be surprised if this woman had a history of mental illness. But I admit, I could be wrong about that. We all need to guard against projecting our own politics onto anecdotal news stories within minutes of them unfolding. We simply don't know all the answers to this tragedy yet.
Well, our congress can wrack up it's first death as a result of this ludicrous governance by shutting down government. I would not be surprised if this woman was facing total ruin because of this callous disregard of congress' mandate to "serve the people". How much longer before we start calling these 30 or 40 anarchists who are responsible for this intentional disaster as "seditionists"?Really? Blaming some in Congress? :roll: I would not be surprised if this woman had a history of mental illness. But I admit, I could be wrong about that. We all need to guard against projecting our own politics onto anecdotal news stories within minutes of them unfolding. We simply don't know all the answers to this tragedy yet. I agree, it was a speculation, but her target seems somewhat indicative of what she was thinking, confused as it may have been. Apparently she was not happy with the government. The fact is that about 35 people in congress are practicing anarchy. Time for negotiation is over. Obamacare is law, the president was re-elected with a sizable majority. The debates are over and it is time to vote on the budget. Now 35 neophites want to have last minute concessions, or else they will (and did) shut down a nation of 300,000,000 people. The process has run its course and a budget is on the table, now VOTE on it or shut the hell up and wait for the elections which will decide who governs the country. Then you can write your own laws.
...her target seems somewhat indicative of what she was thinking, confused as it may have been.The White House would be just as much a target due to its symbolism or place in history, as to the politics of who occupies it at any given time.
Apparently she was not happy with the government.Apparently neither are you. ;-)
Now 35 neophites want to have last minute concessions, or else they will shut down a nation of 300,000,000 people.A bit melodramatic, don't you think? You are somehow still able to access the Internet to post your comments. The police in Washington D.C. didn't seem to be shut down one bit from the video I saw. And speaking of seeing it, somehow my electricity and cable still works just fine with the nation of 300,000,000 people shut down. I haven't heard any news stories of planes falling out of the skies. This "shut down" just proves that government is too big.
...her target seems somewhat indicative of what she was thinking, confused as it may have been.The White House would be just as much a target due to its symbolism or place in history, as to the politics of who occupies it at any given time.
Apparently she was not happy with the government.Apparently neither are you. ;-)
Now 35 neophites want to have last minute concessions, or else they will shut down a nation of 300,000,000 people.A bit melodramatic, don't you think? You are somehow still able to access the Internet to post your comments. The police in Washington D.C. didn't seem to be shut down one bit from the video I saw. And speaking of seeing it, somehow my electricity and cable still works just fine with the nation of 300,000,000 people shut down. I haven't heard any news stories of planes falling out of the skies. This "shut down" just proves that government is too big. Are you telling me the country can work just fine without government "services". IMO, you seriously underestimate the damage this is doing to our country of 300,000,000 million people. Laying off 800,000 taxpaying wage earners will seriously impact the economy. And I am not surprised, this was a declared intention by a few individuals. Remember the promise "we will do anything to make this president fail"? They may get their wish, but it won't be Obama's failure, it will be theirs. But of course Obama executive branch of government is to blame for the total dysfunction of that "independent" other branch of government. Debate over details is over, it is time to vote on the national budget as per the rules of the game. No one is preventing anyone from voting on keeping the government functioning. The Republicans are refusing to vote and thereby are committing acts and speech of sedition. Perhaps you are not affected by this, but that is the mindset of these seditionists. They still get paid and have their perks like health insurance, while some children may die from malnutrition. But who cares, right? As long as you get yours all this handwringing is just melodrama.
Rocinante,
Are you under the impression that all tax dollars goes into the pockets of “government”. The government is a non-profit organization and except for administrative costs, all tax dollars are used to provide public services, which have now stopped. and then we get a congressman complaining of not having access to our national parks or monuments and insulting a park ranger who is not getting paid for his work.
And this is a congressman who is refusing to vote on keeping the government functioning and then has the hypocrisy to blame Obama for ordering the closure of our national parks. Talking about melodrama. I am outraged, outraged by this kind of racist demagoguery.
I am outraged, outraged by this kind of racist demagoguery.Your words: • “our congress can wrack up it’s first death" • “anarchists" • “seditionists" • “racist" Then you claim others demagogue. :-) Pot, meet kettle. I don’t deny there is demagoguery going on by republicans. Just as there is demagoguery going on by democrats: • President Obama said republicans were “...putting a gun to the other person’s head..." • Like you, Harry Reid used the term “anarchists" in describing republicans. • Nancy Pelosi called them “legislative arsonists." • Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “You cannot negotiate when they take hostages and when they extort." • Senior White House Advisor Dan Pfeiffer said, “What we’re not for is negotiating with people who have a bomb strapped to their chest" • Former Vice President Al Gore said, “The only phrase that describes it is political terrorism." • Senator Agnus King said of republicans, “...those people are guilty of murder in my opinion." Not Tu quo’ing, just keeping this discussion honest by showing the other side you conveniently left out. I don’t worship at the altar of government. I know life goes on just fine. I know that this government “shutdown" is only a game of semantics and some political theatrics by those on both sides. Just use the IRS as a benchmark. As it stands now, the IRS is not sending out checks, but they sure as hell are still collecting taxes! Or look at the Grand Canyon. The State of Arizona offered to foot the bill to keep it open. The feds said, “No!" That would have been a nice compromise. But Obama (who has no problem negotiating with the Islamofascist, misogynist, homophobic leader of Iran) refuses to negotiate with the Representatives of the American people. And since 75% of American voters don’t want the current Obamacare, their Representatives are doing their job in trying to get it changed. The message from Obama is loud and clear: Let big things like the Grand Canyon or the WWII Memorial “shut down" to use as political ammunition. Obama wanted this “shut down" just as much as any republican. And both are using demagoguery. But life goes on. And in the end, if more American people realize just that - that they can live just fine without a massive and intrusive government that won't compromise with the American people, then hopefully their mindset will shift a bit more towards freedom and away from the slavish addiction of government dependence. And that's a good thing.
Oh, and by the way, it looks like I was right about the possibility of mental illness playing a part:
The message from Obama is loud and clear: Let big things like the Grand Canyon or the WWII Memorial “shut down" to use as political ammunition. Obama wanted this “shut down" just as much as any republican. And both are using demagoguery.Bingo. It was amusing hearing Hugh Hewitt question an objective mainstream media journalist (Dylan Byers of Politico) on this point. Hewitt points out that, under the hostage analogy the Democrats have used so often, Reed is refusing to accept the release of a hostage when Republicans send a bill that will fund, for example, the NIH and the Democrats refuse to take up the bill. Byers splutters that, in context, Reed is just avoiding giving the Republicans what they want, which is control of what gets funded. Of course that's part of the function of Congress and the House. All of the hostages or none is the Democrats' method of doing hostage negotiation (Hewitt points out--quote may be approximate-- "Who ever heard of refusing to accept the release of hostages?"). It's political theater. If the NIH misses out on funding the Democrats have to share the blame.
Keep the government shutdown!
Please. Just long enough so I can listen to the average Tea Bagger or conservative
whining about the absence of Big Government.
Keep it shutdown!
I hope Reid and Obama and the rest of them call these idiots bluff.
I just want to see these bozos begging for government to return!
Oh, and they will. The moderate GOP are already whispering.
Keep it shutdown!
Reid and Obama better not cave.
VYAZMA pretty much makes your point for you, Rocinante.
The message from Obama is loud and clear: Let big things like the Grand Canyon or the WWII Memorial “shut down" to use as political ammunition. Obama wanted this “shut down" just as much as any republican. And both are using demagoguery.Bingo. It was amusing hearing Hugh Hewitt question an objective mainstream media journalist (Dylan Byers of Politico) on this point. Hewitt points out that, under the hostage analogy the Democrats have used so often, Reed is refusing to accept the release of a hostage when Republicans send a bill that will fund, for example, the NIH and the Democrats refuse to take up the bill. Byers splutters that, in context, Reed is just avoiding giving the Republicans what they want, which is control of what gets funded. Of course that's part of the function of Congress and the House. All of the hostages or none is the Democrats' method of doing hostage negotiation (Hewitt points out--quote may be approximate-- "Who ever heard of refusing to accept the release of hostages?"). It's political theater. If the NIH misses out on funding the Democrats have to share the blame. What twisted logic is this? Are you saying that a small republican minority in congress (30-40 individuals) can shut down the entire government for 300,000,000 people, because they do not like ONE law of their own proposed budget which the dems agreed to. If congress would vote on this today the current budget would pass with a bi-partisan majority. In any case they cannot declare the old budget under which the current government has functioned with positive results, null and void and refuse to pass even a CR. IMO that is sedition! The very people who complain about the government ARE part of the government. In an orderly functioning government, there are timeframes of getting things done, that need to be done. There is a procedure of back and forth and at the end a vote is taken, at which time the Bill becomes Law (or not) and is included in the budget as a necessary expense. Comes 30 or 40 Radical representatives who somehow prevent the leadership of one of the congressional parties, to follow this orderly process and create chaos in the governance of a nation of 300,000,000 people and now have expanded the problem to include the existing current budget under which the government was functional for years with positive impact on the Economy. Laws can only be changed or defunded by congressional procedure. Not by defunding the entire government at budget time. I would propose that if the government is shut down Congress is defunded by default and citizens would no longer be required to pay any taxes. This of course is anarchy and does not belong in a civilized country that considers itself a shining light of democracy.
What twisted logic is this?If you think it's twisted don't expect me to explain why it's twisted. That's up to you. ;-)
Are you saying that a small minority in congress can shut down the entire government for 300,000,000 people, because they do not like ONE law of their own proposed budget which the dems agreed to.That wasn't my main point, but yes, that's part of Congress' role. "Power of the purse," remember? American Gov't 101.
If congress would vote on this today the current budget would pass with a bi-partisan majority. In any case they cannot declare the old budget under which the current government has functioned with positive results, null and void. IMO that is sedition!We don't really have a budget. All we have is a continuing resolution. But the point isn't that Congress is declaring old legislation null and void, but that it is declining to fund it. That's always been the case, for example, with wars. Congress can undercut its own past declaration of war by declining to fund a war effort. Are you going to charge the House with sedition based on your opinion or do you plan to have some legal basis for it?
The very people who complain about the government ARE part of the government.There's a sentence ripe with potential for a fallacy of equivocation! ;-)
In an orderly functioning government, there are timeframes of getting things done, that need to be done. There is a procedure of back and forth and at the end a vote is taken, at which time the Bill becomes Law and is included in the budget as a necessary expense.Okay, then why does the administration get to decide not to enforce immigration by deporting those who illegally immigrate? Oh, you say they get to prioritize? But Congress can't do that wrt the budget? Are you serious?
Comes 30 or 40 Radical representatives who somehow prevent the leadership of one of the congressional parties, to follow this orderly process and create chaos in the governance of a nation of 300,000,000 people and now have expanded the problem to include the existing current budget under which the government was functional for years with positive impact on the Economy.And that's a sentence pregnant with assumptions, though it doesn't seem to really address any point but rather to serve as a method for venting.
Laws can only be changed or defunded by congressional procedure. Not by defunding the entire government at budget time.So Write4U has declared. So let it be. Or something.
I would propose that if the government is shut down Congress is defunded by default and citizens would no longer be required to pay any taxes. This of course is anarchy and does not belong in a civilized country that considers itself a shining light of democracy.Maybe you should seize power and put your policies into effect. Until then, we're stuck with standard congressional procedure, of which this is a part. James Madison countenanced situations like this one.
The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.You may not like this reality, Write4U, but the ACA is an unpopular law. The House has asked for a 1-year delay for the individual mandate as a condition for funding the rest of the government, after the administration (on what legal grounds?) declared a 1-year delay for the employer mandate. Deals like this on appropriations are nothing new. http://hnn.us/article/153473
Bryan, That wasn’t my main point, but yes, that’s part of Congress’ role. “Power of the purse," remember? American Gov’t 101.Yes, if by majority, not a small minority. And all this is being debated now? I thought they had some 18 months of debate available and had come to agreement, challenged and found to be constitutional. I would agree with you if a majority were opposed to the budget, but a majority would vote affirmative. This is tyranny of the few using strong arm extortion tactics with DIRE adverse results for the population. I thought we had learned from Darwin that cooperative efforts are almost always beneficial to survival. Unless one is a proponent of natural individual selection, it is best to keep society orderly, don't you agree? The current situation cannot bring positive results. It is detrimental to the country in many ways. It is poor governance by these few people who seek to control governance of the entire country, without knowing the public needs of 300,000,000 people and a war and unemployment. It is ludicrous. And of course I am voicing my opinion. Based only on my personal views on humanitarian principles and behavior, not if a certain legislative action is permissible under law at a time when the country is in recovery. It reminds me of the movie, Misery.
VYAZMA pretty much makes your point for you, Rocinante.No. No. Obama and Reid wanted a Clean Budget Bill. That's all! They didn't want the govt. shutdown. Boehner could have run a straight up or down vote with his House and the clean CR would have passed. The Senate would have passed it and Obama would have signed it. That simple.
You may not like this reality, Write4U, but the ACA is an unpopular law. The House has asked for a 1-year delay for the individual mandate as a condition for funding the rest of the government, after the administration (on what legal grounds?) declared a 1-year delay for the employer mandate. Deals like this on appropriations are nothing new.No no. It's a misunderstood law. After years of propaganda by anti-Obama Care activists and special interests some people don't understand the ACA. Just like when Social Security and Medicare started out. People are already reaping the benefits of the ACA. In time we will raise revenues through better taxation and everything will be running smoothly. We just have to get the country's spending priorities straight. Obviously healthcare is a big priority. The ACA finally makes it one.
You may not like this reality, Write4U, but the ACA is an unpopular law. The House has asked for a 1-year delay for the individual mandate as a condition for funding the rest of the government, after the administration (on what legal grounds?) declared a 1-year delay for the employer mandate. Deals like this on appropriations are nothing new. http://hnn.us/article/153473Yes which is directly related to the marginal 2% of borderline businesses to allow them to continue providing jobs in a growing economy. And it is a budget which was presented by the republican party. If you want it debated further, pass a CR and allow to government to function, while debating the issues. You don't burn your car cause it has a flat tire and you have spare in your trunk that can get you to the shop where they can fix the problem. You seem to forget that the intent of the ACA Law is to reduce spending on healthcare while providing cheaper more efficient health care coverage for all in a free market competitive system. It is already possible to get some basic medical care coverage for $50 - $60 p/mo if you are eligible for direct government assistance. The entire bill is designed to save costs on those who cannot afford current healthcare premiums and bring down the deficit spending at the same time. It is an economic stimulus package. A healthier well educated work force produces better quality goods. This last minute insistence by Republicans of renegotiation their own budget, is clearly obstructionist and harmful to the welfare of the nation, IOW sedition (if not in law, it is in spirit). The Republicans will not take a yes for an answer. This crisis is wholly their doing and hopefully their undoing. To vote against this bill is active obstruction, legal or not. The key here is that nothing gets accomplished, because the democarts have already said yes to the Republican budget numbers. But, apparently they feel they can extort a few more dollars at the last possible moment by shutting down the entire government, regardless (perhaps purposefully) of the costs of keeping public services closed. Obama is not to blame in this disaster. here are some facts. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/economy/?page=2 This well funded minority acting like a chid stomping his foot on the ground for another cookie and refusing to go to school, because he did not get his cookie, even tough everyone agreed on 1 cookie each.
Congress, pertaining to itself, sets its own rules. Is the minority running afoul of those rules somehow?Bryan, That wasn’t my main point, but yes, that’s part of Congress’ role. “Power of the purse," remember? American Gov’t 101.Yes, if by majority, not a small minority.
Yes which is directly related to the marginal 2% of borderline businesses to allow them to continue providing jobs in a growing economy. And it is a budget which was presented by the republican party. If you want it debated further, pass a CR and allow to government to function, while debating the issues. You don't burn your car cause it has a flat tire and you have spare in your trunk that can get you to the shop where they can fix the problem.I'm not sure the analogy fits. The "government shutdown" is obviously partial, though I'd agree that it's damaging not to increase the debt limit if by necessity the defaults on or shuffles payments to the extent that it directly hurts the U.S. credit rating. On the other hand, part of the rationale for opposing raising the credit rating is the desire to address the long-term drivers of the deficit. Which serves as a wonderful segue to your next point ...
You seem to forget that the intent of the ACA Law is to reduce spending on healthcare while providing cheaper more efficient health care coverage for all in a free market competitive system.The ACA does not reduce spending on healthcare, unless we count the soft cap on Medicare spending (evil when Ryan proposed it, IIRC). The accounting on the ACA is smoke and mirrors throughout. It costs over $1 trillion. Adding $1 trillion in new costs does not reduce spending on healthcare. The bill hides that truth from people by claiming an overall reduction to the deficit. How do they pull that off? With new taxes. And the real hidden trick comes via the combined employer and employee mandates. The government, albeit minus any real teeth (I predict those will grow in later, either that or a push for single-payer) requires everyone to buy insurance. This is akin to a tax. This is the government, not individuals, deciding on the necessity of something and then, instead of spending the money itself, requiring individuals to spend money on it. The "free market competitive system." Well, kinda sorta. It's kind of like having a Harrison Bergeron style race where the contestants have a certain type of shoe they have to wear, an intricate set of steps they have to follow, and anti-aerodynamic accoutrements they have to wear. After the strict government regulations are all in place and the gun sounds, then it's "free market" competition. But it's not really a free market. It's a market more strictly regulated than ever before (speaking of the U.S.).
It is already possible to get some basic medical care coverage for $50 - $60 p/mo if you are eligible for direct government assistance.Isn't Medicaid even less than that? But let's be careful not to confuse the cost to the consumer with the overall cost. The government assistance comes from taxation. Somebody's got to pay for it. The cost of health care nationally will go up, not down. Is that what President Obama sold us from the stump?
The entire bill is designed to save costs on those who cannot afford current healthcare premiums and bring down the deficit spending at the same time.It increases spending, but brings down the deficit with counterbalancing taxes. Put those taxes into effect (I don't recommend it, of course--they're mostly dumb like the tax on medical devices) and the deficit comes down that much faster, doesn't it? Smoke, mirrors.
It is an economic stimulus package.It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping! It's not an economic stimulus package. Will it grow jobs in the health care sector? Probably, and mostly lower-paying jobs while it helps lop the top off the higher paying medical jobs (doctors will earn less). The cost in jobs elsewhere probably more than make up for it. The MLR limits are costing people in the insurance industry (brokers) money and jobs. They're being replaced with low-cost government "navigators." The complexity of the law is harming economic growth.
A healthier well educated work force produces better quality goods.That's assuming they have jobs, of course. A healthier well educated work force without jobs achieves higher scores while gaming.
This last minute insistence by Republicans of renegotiation their own budget, is clearly obstructionist and harmful to the welfare of the nation, IOW sedition (if not in law, it is in spirit). The Republicans will not take a yes for an answer. This crisis is wholly their doing and hopefully their undoing. To vote against this bill is active obstruction, legal or not. The key here is that nothing gets accomplished, because the democarts have already said yes to the Republican budget numbers. But, apparently they feel they can extort a few more dollars at the last possible moment by shutting down the entire government, regardless (perhaps purposefully) of the costs of keeping public services closed. Obama is not to blame in this disaster.Obviously Obama shares blame for the shutdown, to the tune of whatever hostages for which he refuses to accept release.
here are some facts. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/economy/?page=2Rachel Maddow's right about PolitiFact. It doesn't deserve to have the word "fact" in its name.
Who cares what it costs? Raise my taxes! I’m all for it.
Costs! Costs! Costs!
The old constipated rhetoric of the conservative “SHUT THE LIGHTS OFF” crowd.
Obamacare(ACA) is the law! The revenue streams will adjust accordingly! :lol:
And yes, what a wonderfully slippery slope!
:lol: A ha ha ha ha {diabolical laughter}
I’m happy to pay more taxes. What’s an increase? An extra $20-$50 bucks out of my pay? Gladly!
Of course I give to charity too. I don’t mind sharing for the common good.
Slippery slope Bryan! Slippery slope! :lol:
I can’t help but smile at the clever technique Republicans have been using in regard to negotiation. The technique is known as nibbling or the “baloney game”. It goes this way. Two parties enter into negotiation. One party gives some concessions and the negotiations are supposedly accepted and closed. Then the second party, who has nibbled or taken the baloney slices, i.e., the concessions, wants to reopen the negotiations but with those as the new starting point. The proper defense, which the Democrats should do, is to remind everyone of those consessions and shift the negotiations to getting those back before continuing with the new items.
The Democrats, gave in badly by allowing the budget to be reduced, and it was accepted. Now the Republicans are asking for more, major reductions. The Democrats gave in and allowed the original Affordable Health Care bill to be weakened by taking out a number of valuable provisions in order to get the Republicans to accept it. Now, the Republicans are back demanding further, major concessions.
Occam