Jump to content

US Government Shut Down - new elections for senate and house of rep.?


CaptainPanic

Recommended Posts

I could be a jerk and ask for sources that prove your "well worth the money" comment but I won't. I'll agree that parts are worth the money. On the other hand most people will see no impact and wonder what all the fuss is about. They may wonder what all those 800,000 people were doing if they can't notice when the doing it stopped. They may also ask why is the government doing anything that isn't essential and why they should be expected to ever pay for non-essential budget items. Those were common questions during the last shutdown.

In the sense of the 2013 government furlough, "nonessential" items are things like national parks, museums, etc that don't impact the government, but are still added into the budget due to their federal funding. As was stated earlier, these things are essential in the financial sense because it generates revenue for the government. Imagine owning a factory to create products, but having no way to sell them because you don't have a store. So without the ability to sell there's no point in continuing production until that store is built. However you still have to add production into your company's budget because when things get going again, you will have to resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerrymandering, has always skewed results of house seats, thus more firmly embedding the power of the party generally in power at the local level. I think through history it has worked both ways, both in favor of republicans and democrats in different situations

In the past few decades, though, it has been used almost entirely to the benefit of the Republican Party in Congress - allowing them to retain control over national politics without acquiring national electoral majorities.

 

This misrepresents the States involved, and their citizens - under Supreme Courts of the past this degree of gerrymandering was often thrown out, and different districting mandated under Federal supervision. This Court is less likely to do that.

 

 

 

On the other hand most people will see no impact and wonder what all the fuss is about. They may wonder what all those 800,000 people were doing if they can't notice when the doing it stopped. They may also ask why is the government doing anything that isn't essential and why they should be expected to ever pay for non-essential budget items. Those were common questions during the last shutdown.

Lots of people are willfully ignorant, not too bright, and incapable of recognizing the existence of important matters that do not directly affect their own persons and daily life. So?

 

After all, none of the functions of a government are "essential" if one is willing to do without. I can say, for example, that the closure of the Parks has far more immediate personal impact on me than the forloughing of air traffic controllers would, and looking over the comparative lists I get the distinct impression that "essential" means "important to upper class suburban businessmen" - I would not be affected if half the prison guards were furloughed and all the drug offenders simply released, for example, or the air traffic controllers and screeners let go, or 2/3 of the military and most of the Homeland Security apparatus laid off, and so forth. That would save a ton of money, and leave my life unaffected. But instead these people are labeled "essential", and the WIC program administration laid off instead, apparently so that people like we read here can look around and see no effects. Those millions of kids fed by WIC, schooled by Head Start, etc? They don't know a single one of them.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerrymandering, has always skewed results of house seats, thus more firmly embedding the power of the party generally in power at the local level. I think through history it has worked both ways, both in favor of republicans and democrats in different situations.

In the past few decades, though, it has been used almost entirely to the benefit of the Republican Party in Congress - allowing them to retain control over national politics without acquiring national electoral majorities.

Overtone is quite right, and TAR is merely repeating and often repeated myth.

 

 

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

 

Gerrymanders, Part 1: Busting the both-sides-do-it myth

 

Some state that partisan gerrymandering is a symmetric problem, i.e. both Democrats and Republicans do it. Although both sides are potentially motivated, only one side has taken redistricting to extremes. Recent changes in partisan gerrymandering constitute one of the major crises facing our system of government.

<...>

There are some simple lessons to take away from this.

 

1. Republican-controlled redistricting led to a swing in margin of at least* 26 seats, almost as large as the 31-seat majority of the new Congress. Those actions created a new power reality in the House – or more accurately, retained the old power reality.

 

2.In the states listed above, the net effect of both parties’ redistricting combined was R+11.5 seats. Putting all of this redistricting into nonpartisan commissions would lead to a swing of at least 23 seats.

 

And here from a report directly out of the Republican State Leadership Committee:

 

http://www.rslc.com/redmap_2012_summary_report

 

Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.

 

But, as we see today, that was not the case. Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans. The only analogous election in recent political history in which this aberration has taken place was immediately after reapportionment in 1972, when Democrats held a 50 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while losing the presidency and the popular congressional vote by 2.6 million votes.

 

<snip>

 

In the 70 congressional districts that were labeled by National Public Radio as “competitive” in 2010, Republicans controlled the redrawing of at least 47 of those districts; Democrats were responsible for 15, and a non-partisan process determined eight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Even if the president is elected by 60 percent of the population, there is still the other 40 percent that he is obligated to lead, and stand for.

But that's true of elected officials everywhere. And yet the GOP is not representing the interests of their constituents. Universal healthcare is a net positive for the country, and the current implementation of the idea that was originally put forth by the right. But they have plainly shown that they are not interested in governing. Their efforts have only been to oppose the left, no matter what idea has been proposed.

 

And with the shutdown and threats concerning the debt ceiling, they are putting their self-interests above the interests of their constituents, which is an even greater failure of governing.

Swansont,

 

And just for the record, this summer NJ replaced departed democratic senator Laudtenburg (who I voted for) with a Republican, who questions the unfunded mandate aspects, and the unappropriated use of 20 different government agencies, in the implementation of the AHA.

 

Regards, TAR2

He can question it all he wants. But it's the law of the land. He has no standing to demolish it except via the constutionally-described process of voting for a bill, having it pass and having the president sign it. If they don't have the votes for it, they need to win more elections.

I could be a jerk and ask for sources that prove your "well worth the money" comment but I won't. I'll agree that parts are worth the money. On the other hand most people will see no impact and wonder what all the fuss is about. They may wonder what all those 800,000 people were doing if they can't notice when the doing it stopped. They may also ask why is the government doing anything that isn't essential and why they should be expected to ever pay for non-essential budget items. Those were common questions during the last shutdown.

That comes down to how you define essential. In this case, it is defined in terms of critical, day-today operations, i.e. short-term. Nonessential means activities that can be deferred a short time. e.g. Is it essential that you change the oil in your car today? No, you can probably put that off a few days or even a week or a month. But if you completely ignore it, you will find out that it really is essential that you change your oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, essentially, the Republicans (or, rather, a minority of Republicans) are effectively holding the government and, by extension, the rest of the country, to ransom by way of gerrymandering over the Budget - all because they oppose Obamacare? Is that about the extent of it?

 

What I don't understand is, in the 21st Century, how can any one individual citizen or group seriously oppose the concept of affordable healthcare for all? I would argue that even affordable health insurance for all does not go far enough. There is no excuse for any modern economically developed country to not have a robust and high-quality national health service such as we have in the UK. National services not only have obvious direct health and economic benefits for those who use it - they also, by extension, help everyone. If, as I get the impression, the far right Republicans in the US are only concerned about the bottom line - then even ignoring the blatant humanity motive - any US citizen is going to be a consumer of American goods. By helping poorer citizens one is helping the customer base to survive. It's just the smart thing to do. Clearly it is an alien concept to far-right Republicans but - pay attention now - working together constructively and helping one another is beneficial for all.

 

Sure, you may be able to construct big shiny towering buildings and obscene casinos in cities built on the back of the 'American dream'. What good is that if you are not willing to care for the most vulnerable sections of your society in their time of need? Not very civilised, is it? More like the 'American nightmare'.

 

Where is the political spirit in the US? Why aren't people taking to the streets and holding peaceful protests or sit-ins outside Congress? What has happened to the political spirit of the Civil Rights Movement that helped to transform US society and secure equality for black US citizens? Perhaps it is because the US is such a large country and so logistically it is more difficult to organise communication and events between people in distant states who share the same interests but whom are inadequately represented in that place of power concentration, Washington.

 

I feel angry on behalf of economically vulnerable US citizens who are getting a rough deal from government, and I don't even live there. Thank the non-existential Deity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overtone,

 

10 or 15 years ago I remember reading about a conference in Washington of WIC directors. It brought to my mind, the image and realization that there is a beauracracy of thousands of people in the Federal Government, with the authority of Federal law, and a large budget, whose only job it is to find and feed and care for women with infant children whose fathers and families have for one reason or another failed to do so, to the standards of the federal government. It seems to me there is a expectation of entitlement that is fostered, when such a government establishment is existant. If the government becomes everybodies mommy and daddy, in every area of life, who is left, to provide adult supervision, to the government, itself? And who is left to dole out the wealth, if there is no one responsible for creating it, and husbanding the countries resources, in the first place?

 

A side concern of mine, which probably should be a central concern, is the 85 billion of loans and securities that the Federal Reserve is puchasing every month. When the Federal Reserve owns ALL the assets, who among us, then has say over their disposition? Who actually owns the assets? Mom and Pop? No. The states? No. the Congress? No. The president? No. Big Business? No. The people? No. The big banks? Maybe. Are the banks then responsible for feeding everybody and taking care of everybody? They perhaps should be, but they don't act like this is their role, and most people still consider feeding their family and putting a roof over their head, and paying the mortgage is a personal responsibility.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the sense of the 2013 government furlough, "nonessential" items are things like national parks, museums, etc that don't impact the government, but are still added into the budget due to their federal funding. As was stated earlier, these things are essential in the financial sense because it generates revenue for the government. Imagine owning a factory to create products, but having no way to sell them because you don't have a store. So without the ability to sell there's no point in continuing production until that store is built. However you still have to add production into your company's budget because when things get going again, you will have to resume.

There's more to it than that. For example: the military loves robust, redundant systems, because you don't want to lose some capability because of a failure (however it is caused). Like GPS. You wouldn't know if GPS was being supported by a primary system, or its backup system, because that's how it's designed. But right now people who this back-end support GPS are at home and won't be in to work today. People don't notice the effect because they aren't familiar with how the system works. It will cost them money eventually, because it takes more effort and money to fix things when they break as opposed to maintaining them all along.

 

Or when you furlough someone like me, you don't notice the effect because R&D takes years. Someone may question why a project was delayed a year or two from now, but nobody is noticing it right now. But projects that I've worked on are absolutely essential, and that's true of scientists, engineers and tech support people all over the government.

 

IT people aren't essential if the networks they maintain are shut down. But would you characterize cyber security as nonessential? Even though you don't notice that, as random person on the street?

So, essentially, the Republicans (or, rather, a minority of Republicans) are effectively holding the government and, by extension, the rest of the country, to ransom by way of gerrymandering over the Budget - all because they oppose Obamacare? Is that about the extent of it?

 

What I don't understand is, in the 21st Century, how can any one individual citizen or group seriously oppose the concept of affordable healthcare for all?

They could have done this at any fiscal cutoff, and they didn't. Previously they've threatened shutdowns using other reasons. Maybe they just really wanted to shut the government down — tea partiers have been drooling over shutdowns for several yars. Maybe what they really don't like about the ACA is the taxes. Or maybe they realize this was their last chance to gut it because people are going to like having health care and the ones that don't vote might register and vote democrat. And with that, the GOP loses the majority in the house (if their shenanigans haven't cost them that already) and start losing majorities at the state level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 or 15 years ago I remember reading about a conference in Washington of WIC directors. It brought to my mind, the image and realization that there is a beauracracy of thousands of people in the Federal Government, with the authority of Federal law, and a large budget, whose only job it is to find and feed and care for women with infant children whose fathers and families have for one reason or another failed to do so, to the standards of the federal government. It seems to me there is a expectation of entitlement that is fostered, when such a government establishment is existant. If the government becomes everybodies mommy and daddy, in every area of life, who is left, to provide adult supervision, to the government, itself? And who is left to dole out the wealth, if there is no one responsible for creating it, and husbanding the countries resources, in the first place?

 

Truly glad there is a section of the Federal Government whose job it is to administer basic financial support to those in crsis - no news here? From the tone of your argument I am willing to bet that you have never experienced a period of extreme financial difficulty. I wonder if you would change your tune upon losing your personal fortune/being made unemployed? Would you still encourage the eagles to leave you alone? The way you think about profit-creation is backwards. Sure, there are odd cases of self-made men and women who literally relied on no-one else, employed no-one else. The capitalist model actually involves wealth creation by the workers, the masses, and accruement of that wealth by the CEO. The CEO did not and cannot generate profit without employees. As such, the employees (read, mothers of the fatherless children, above) are the most valuable part of any company but they are hoodwinked into disbelieving their own worth. Helping employees and would-be employees during their time of need is therefore the smart thing to do all-round. It's kind of like in a family. When one family member falls onto hard times, the others chip in to help and are paid back once the person gets back on their feet. Functional families, loving families, do not ostracise that member and say, 'Sorry you have fallen down but we're not prepared to help you, you're a drain on our resources'. Families survive by helping one another across the generations (children helping parents, especially with today's ageing populations in the US and UK, children more than ever need to help their parents). This is where your 'state as mother/father' analogy breaks down. We need our societies to start behaving more like one functional family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tridimity,

 

I do not think the AHA is the universal healthcare you have established in England.

 

I read some of the site yesterday (healthcare.gov), and for most people, the law doesn't do a single positive thing. We still have to buy insurance from the insurance companies, and the actuarials at the insurance company, still establish the rates and payouts and deductables and such. You can buy a bronze, silver, gold or platnium policy with your own money, and each is more expensive and lowers your deductables and raises the insurance companies percentage of payout as you go up the line. The government does not pay ANY part of your medical expenses. If you can show low income, you get an advanced tax credit, that can be applied directly to your policy payments, but you still have to actually pay the premiums for the coverage you have selected.

 

Don't think that we have established "free" clinics, that anyone and everyone can just walk into. We still pay for our insurance and have to pay as we go, for any healthcare services we use. Its just now commanded by the government that we have purchased insurance for ourselves. And the cost for such may be lower and subsidized for low income people, but someone is still paying the insurance companies for the policies, and the insurance companies are still deciding what is covered, and what is not, within the directives, of a very complex and confusing law, that STILL puts the cost of healthcare on the backs of the user of the services. (or on the general tax payer to subsidize low income people in the purchase of their minimal policy).

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Regards, TAR


Tridimity,

 

You have a point. And I agree with it, on the family thing. People already help each other out, without the government. and I do not consider I have gotten anywhere on my own. I just consider that I have done my part in getting everyone where they are. I was reluctant to receive unemployment when I lost my job last year. I had NEVER in my life received unenployment insurance, although I had paid in for 30 years. I wound up applying and receiving unemployment for 4 months till a secured an other position at the company I have been working for for most of my adult life.

 

I also know that people make a company and a country, and the elite and CEOs are wealthy on the backs of us workers. There is a "same in kind" aspect to slavery, and working in the coal mine for the company store, and working as I do, to pay the bank. But who controls the means of production is a separate discussion, from who should pay for your lunch or doctor visit.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tridimity,

 

I do not think the AHA is the universal healthcare you have established in England.

 

I read some of the site yesterday (healthcare.gov), and for most people, the law doesn't do a single positive thing. We still have to buy insurance from the insurance companies, and the actuarials at the insurance company, still establish the rates and payouts and deductables and such. You can buy a bronze, silver, gold or platnium policy with your own money, and each is more expensive and lowers your deductables and raises the insurance companies percentage of payout as you go up the line. The government does not pay ANY part of your medical expenses. If you can show low income, you get an advanced tax credit, that can be applied directly to your policy payments, but you still have to actually pay the premiums for the coverage you have selected.

 

Don't think that we have established "free" clinics, that anyone and everyone can just walk into. We still pay for our insurance and have to pay as we go, for any healthcare services we use. Its just now commanded by the government that we have purchased insurance for ourselves. And the cost for such may be lower and subsidized for low income people, but someone is still paying the insurance companies for the policies, and the insurance companies are still deciding what is covered, and what is not, within the directives, of a very complex and confusing law, that STILL puts the cost of healthcare on the backs of the user of the services. (or on the general tax payer to subsidize low income people in the purchase of their minimal policy).

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Regards, TAR

Tridimity,

 

You have a point. And I agree with it, on the family thing. People already help each other out, without the government. and I do not consider I have gotten anywhere on my own. I just consider that I have done my part in getting everyone where they are. I was reluctant to receive unemployment when I lost my job last year. I had NEVER in my life received unenployment insurance, although I had paid in for 30 years. I wound up applying and receiving unemployment for 4 months till a secured an other position at the company I have been working for for most of my adult life.

 

I also know that people make a company and a country, and the elite and CEOs are wealthy on the backs of us workers. There is a "same in kind" aspect to slavery, and working in the coal mine for the company store, and working as I do, to pay the bank. But who controls the means of production is a separate discussion, from who should pay for your lunch or doctor visit.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I never claimed that the AHA was equivalent to the universal healthcare that we are privileged to have here in the UK. The crux of my argument was that even the reforms to make health insurance more affordable for ordinary people, that are at the centre of the current stalemate in Congress, do not go anywhere near far enough and that the US ought to consider a universal healthcare policy.

 

As for the second point - are you suggesting that anyone who is unfortunate enough not to have support networks of family and friends ought not to receive financial assistance from the state? You seem proud of your own financial independence, and I can understand that, you are probably intelligent and talented and hard-working. These are venerable qualities and ordinarily would mitigate any need to rely on state welfare. However, this simply is not always the case. So please do not take your own personal viewpoint on the undesirability of claiming state welfare and impose it on the millions of intelligent, talented and hard-working people who, because of circumstances beyond their own control (e.g. recession) are unemployed.

Edited by Tridimity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People already help each other out, without the government. and I do not consider I have gotten anywhere on my own. I just consider that I have done my part in getting everyone where they are.

 

And here we have one of our biggest problems as a country in the US. This argument is responsible for viewing welfare as "a sweet ride" for the poor and needy. The media latches onto concerns that the system is being scammed by lazy slackers and suddenly people who are otherwise compassionate start thinking that they've "done [their] part in getting everyone where they are" but others haven't, so welfare = bad.

 

Then they start objecting to public swimming pools because they have their own. Their children have graduated from the public school system so why keep funding it with their tax dollars, haven't they done their part? So the next leap, the one where they start believing national healthcare is welfare or communism/socialism, is actually just a small step.

 

Our news broadcasts (owned by corporations, remember) are full of "investigations" into welfare recipients who own jet-skis and plasma TVs. This makes it seem like this is the norm, and ignores the massive amount of people who don't abuse the system. Our news is very light on success.

 

I find it very ironic that the Republicans are abusing the system themselves with this non-procedural hostage threat tactic in shutting down the very government they swore to administer. I shouldn't, considering they simultaneously stump for fair market practice AND lobby for exclusive deals and legislation to screw over competitors. They argue constitutionality AND ignore the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A side concern of mine, which probably should be a central concern, is the 85 billion of loans and securities that the Federal Reserve is puchasing every month. When the Federal Reserve owns ALL the assets, who among us, then has say over their disposition?

 

I agree it's an important issue. For the sake of argument, let's say that he Federal government defaults on its financial obligations, if Congress should fail to raise the debt ceiling.

This situation could result in a spike in interest rates, as creditors demand a risk premium (reflected in the increase in the interest rate paid) on Treasury securities. But such a situation would run counter to the Federal Reserve's policy of keeping interest rates low to sustain our economic recovery. So the Federal Reserve could be forced to purchase MORE than 85 billion dollars worth of Government securites each month in an effort to prop of the price of such securities (i.e to keep interest rates low). And keep in mind that such an action would put more paper money into circulation, as the Federal Reserve purchases these Government securities with money printed by the Treasury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And here we have one of our biggest problems as a country in the US. This argument is responsible for viewing welfare as "a sweet ride" for the poor and needy. The media latches onto concerns that the system is being scammed by lazy slackers and suddenly people who are otherwise compassionate start thinking that they've "done [their] part in getting everyone where they are" but others haven't, so welfare = bad.

 

Then they start objecting to public swimming pools because they have their own. Their children have graduated from the public school system so why keep funding it with their tax dollars, haven't they done their part? So the next leap, the one where they start believing national healthcare is welfare or communism/socialism, is actually just a small step.

 

 

There are even more examples of the attitude that "if it doesn't affect me it's not a priority", which is far too prevalent in our representatives, and far more common amongst the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This government shutdown, IMO shows how the US is damaged by the addiction of some to big money and power.

 

 

Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases. --
John Adams

Our political process lacks moral authority and the politicians are corrupted by big campaign donations.

 

Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants. --
Benjamin Franklin

"The more one has the more on wants," is an apt description of crack and other addictive drugs.

 

People who lack money for food, clothing, shelter and health care can be unhappy for lack of money, but beyond those things, money cannot buy happiness. When people cannot get the necessities for life support, the prospect for violence increases. People also need a measure of dignity, and companies have been squeezing their employees pay and benefits at the risk of removing dignity, and possibly removing the necessities. I know that it makes for unhappiness, but I do not know at what point that squeeze will breed violence.

 

There have been a few radically violent people in the US, such as Timothy McVeigh. I hope I do not see it in my life time. And, I hope the powerful are a little compassionate rather than sadistic. Whether Obama's health care program passes or not will be one measure of the character of those in power. Has their addiction placed them beyond being compassionate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This about sums it up. This is a fight amongst the GOP.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-republican-partys-constitutional-coup/

 

Thank you for sharing this. It got lost in the shuffle and I wanted to make sure it gets seen.

 

I really hope Boehner can shower off the crazy he got sprayed with. I'm just sorry we have to pay $12M/hour to get him clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether Obama's health care program passes or not will be one measure of the character of those in power. Has their addiction placed them beyond being compassionate?

I think I understand the point you are making, but just to be clear... Obama's healthcare program HAS passed. It passed the House of Representatives. It passed the Senate. It passed Presidential signature. It passed more than one supreme court challenge. It passed an election where this was one of the main deciding issues. The individual components of it pass majority support from the populace, even if they have been conditioned to revolt unthinkingly against the name.

 

All that said, it's no longer a "program." It's a "law." I think you acknowledge that, but given the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves I figured it didn't hurt to repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand the point you are making, but just to be clear... Obama's healthcare program HAS passed. It passed the House of Representatives. It passed the Senate. It passed Presidential signature. It passed more than one supreme court challenge. It passed an election where this was one of the main deciding issues. The individual components of it pass majority support from the populace, even if they have been conditioned to revolt unthinkingly against the name.

 

All that said, it's no longer a "program." It's a "law." I think you acknowledge that, but given the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves I figured it didn't hurt to repeat.

Thanks for the clarification, but it is still being challenged and must get past this challenge. The republicans want an implementation delay and some medicare reforms. If they get a delay, they will use it to fashion additional strategies to delay, revise and repeal the legislation. The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade (abortion) in 1973 and the fight continues.

Edited by EdEarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked this quote from an article in The Economist today discussing the bigger risk of the approaching debt ceiling and how much harder it will be to solve this as the shutdown persists.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79014-us-government-shut-down-new-elections-for-senate-and-house-of-rep/page-4

 

It would be a fascinating dynamic to work through if it weren't so dumb and costly and unnecessary. But here we are, watching the president try to scare markets into scaring a group of hardline legislators who don't seem to be scared of anything, apart from health insurance for Americans who previously couldn't afford any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification, but it is still being challenged and must get past this challenge. The republicans want an implementation delay and some medicare reforms. If they get a delay, they will use it to fashion additional strategies to delay, revise and repeal the legislation. The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade (abortion) in 1973 and the fight continues.

 

I disagree VERY strongly with this stance. This is NOT a challenge, this is a misrepresentation of the will of the People, this is working outside our democratic process, this is political extortion against the American public. This is many things but it's NOT a challenge.

 

I'm sure the Republicans will make real challenges against the ACA in the future, rightful challenges that follow procedures that allow debate and concession, but if they force another government shutdown it won't be "the fight continues", it'll be a few extremists deciding by themselves that compromise itself is not legitimate. After 40 years of standing fast against turbulent opposition, do you really want Roe v Wade to be written off with a gun to our heads? In 40 years, won't our healthy children and grandchildren be happy the ACA didn't fall prey to corporate thuggery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has never been an instance, when the democrats held a majority in one house and a republican was president, that the democrats used either the budget or the debt ceiling as leverage to expand abortion rights. (or for other things, for that matter) Bad example. The fight continues, it is true, but the war on women/for women continues on its own merits, or lack thereof.

 

The ACA is not part of the budget or debt ceiling issues. That's why this is being compared to hostage taking and terrorism.

 

This sums it up nicely

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/385468973971951616

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

there is a beauracracy of thousands of people in the Federal Government, with the authority of Federal law, and a large budget, whose only job it is to find and feed and care for women with infant children whose fathers and families have for one reason or another failed to do so, to the standards of the federal government. It seems to me there is a expectation of entitlement that is fostered, when such a government establishment is existant.
Uh, yeah, an "expectation of entitlement" to food, in women with infant children, is something I think we all regard as a basic feature of any decent society with the means to feed itself in general.

 

Do you object to it, for some reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I disagree VERY strongly with this stance. This is NOT a challenge, this is a misrepresentation of the will of the People, this is working outside our democratic process, this is political extortion against the American public. This is many things but it's NOT a challenge.

 

I'm sure the Republicans will make real challenges against the ACA in the future, rightful challenges that follow procedures that allow debate and concession, but if they force another government shutdown it won't be "the fight continues", it'll be a few extremists deciding by themselves that compromise itself is not legitimate. After 40 years of standing fast against turbulent opposition, do you really want Roe v Wade to be written off with a gun to our heads? In 40 years, won't our healthy children and grandchildren be happy the ACA didn't fall prey to corporate thuggery?

I wholly agree that the government being shut down is outside the democratic process and is extortion. It is a desperate attempt by people who have lost the democratic battle. It is not violent, but such deep feelings and hard positions sometimes lead to violence. I hope and believe it will not go that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wholly agree that the government being shut down is outside the democratic process and is extortion. It is a desperate attempt by people who have lost the democratic battle. It is not violent, but such deep feelings and hard positions sometimes lead to violence. I hope and believe it will not go that far.

 

Although I hope it doesn't reach that point, I have debates about whether I need to dust off my bug out bag. The US population may have appeared to become mindless sheep following whatever the boob tube tells them to do, there will come a time when they wake up and realize that this nation has been hijacked by a government that is looking out for itself. This is the exact thing that our forefathers were trying to avoid when they signed that parchment so many years ago. I don't want this to become a thread hijack, (and don't let it become that) but it's times like this that military and former military, such as myself, has to decide exactly how we will define an enemy. We all took an oath to protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Is our true faith and allegiance to the nation or to the government?

 

This entire shutdown is ridiculous. The point of the Legislative branch is to pass the bills and budget the finances for the nation. Why haven't they done their jobs? I don't care where you work, if your boss comes in one day, say October 1 and you haven't done a job that you had the last year to complete and you blame it on a disagreement between yourself and a coworker, at least 1 person is going to be looking for a new job. On top of that, Congress continues to get paid for not doing their job. In instances why are we even paying them? They've already proven that they couldn't do their job over the last year and now their getting paid while still not getting the job done?! All the while they sit on their asses and other people that rely on governmental aid (I'm speaking of those with need, not those that work the system) are getting the shaft. It's more than just the WIC office or veterans visiting the WWII memorial. It's those that require chemotherapy, the government employees on the lower echelons who are struggling already to make ends meet while they were still getting their paychecks.

 

No matter what anyone says about it, there's no excuse for them not doing their jobs. There's not even any need for finger pointing to one party or the other. The repubs need to back down a bit so that we can get back to trying to make it through this recession and build America back up to the empire it once was before everything started going down the porcelain throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overtone,

 

No I don't object to providing aid to people in need. I find it hard to take that we spend money to fly 1500 or whatever, WIC directors to a conference in Washington, to do it. Its the building of a seperate power structure to fill every need we have, and the associated millions that are spent on things other than formula and applesauce and antibiotics that would actually impove the situation. Its stuff like the Mayor of NY limiting the size of sugary drinks, because he is concerned with our obesity problem.

 

I saw a product at the store today. It was a hangover prevention subtance, filled with vitamins and a list of healthy stuff...I thought it rather odd, since the most effective prevention I can think of, is to not drink so darn much that you would get a hangover in the first place.

 

I have a thing, about human judgement being crucial. I have a theory that everybody has it and excercises it. We automatically help out our neighbors and even strangers, when they are in trouble. Its a kind of natural state of affairs. Its what good people do. Along with that, goes the responsibility to choose your own way in life. Take on the risks and responsibilities that will cause your life to be the way you want it to be. Pay the dues, do the work, excercise a little delayed gratification, get the schooling and training and knowledge you need to add value to society. Perhaps its the protestan work ethic. I don't know where I got it, but I have it. It is someone elses responsibility to be responsible for their own life, and the lives of the children they bring into the world. I am not their child's daddy and a girl should not get pregnant KNOWING that society will take care of both her and the baby if she does.

 

Perhaps I have come to this apparently heartless and cruel assessment of the affect that government programs have on the way of life of people I have talked to and witnessed in Newark NJ, and Kettle WV. A black man who had 4 children with three different women, interested mostly in "speading his seed", without worry of actually having to provide for the mothers or the children. And a quite widespread Meth epidemic in the West Virgina hills, where the government programs take care of lives of the children whose parents destroy their own.

 

I do not blame the children for these irresponsible actions. I blame the fathers and the mothers who bring children into this world, without the wherewithall and intent and desire to take full responsibility for their own child's health and welfare, education and the preparation of that child for a life of security, value, and happiness.

 

I am full willing to give up a few of my rights and a few of my dollars for the benefit of everyone else, because I know that 200,000,000 people are giving up a few of their rights and a few of their dollars, for my benefit.

 

But I would rather not see a whole segment of the population living in a dream world, where security, value and happiness are thought of as birthright that requires no personal effort and sacrifice to obtain.

 

I have no problem helping out my fellow citizen. It just is not something I need a law hanging over my head, inorder to do. And I would like to retain a general "feel" in the country, that when a problem arises we take care of it, and not wait for Uncle Sam to put together a powerstucture, with the whieght and authority of the Federal Government, to address local, personal issues, that are much better addressed, on a local, personal level.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overtone,

 

No I don't object to providing aid to people in need. I find it hard to take that we spend money to fly 1500 or whatever, WIC directors to a conference in Washington, to do it. Its the building of a seperate power structure to fill every need we have, and the associated millions that are spent on things other than formula and applesauce and antibiotics that would actually impove the situation. Its stuff like the Mayor of NY limiting the size of sugary drinks, because he is concerned with our obesity problem.

 

I saw a product at the store today. It was a hangover prevention subtance, filled with vitamins and a list of healthy stuff...I thought it rather odd, since the most effective prevention I can think of, is to not drink so darn much that you would get a hangover in the first place.

 

I have a thing, about human judgement being crucial. I have a theory that everybody has it and excercises it. We automatically help out our neighbors and even strangers, when they are in trouble. Its a kind of natural state of affairs. Its what good people do. Along with that, goes the responsibility to choose your own way in life. Take on the risks and responsibilities that will cause your life to be the way you want it to be. Pay the dues, do the work, excercise a little delayed gratification, get the schooling and training and knowledge you need to add value to society. Perhaps its the protestan work ethic. I don't know where I got it, but I have it. It is someone elses responsibility to be responsible for their own life, and the lives of the children they bring into the world. I am not their child's daddy and a girl should not get pregnant KNOWING that society will take care of both her and the baby if she does.

 

Perhaps I have come to this apparently heartless and cruel assessment of the affect that government programs have on the way of life of people I have talked to and witnessed in Newark NJ, and Kettle WV. A black man who had 4 children with three different women, interested mostly in "speading his seed", without worry of actually having to provide for the mothers or the children. And a quite widespread Meth epidemic in the West Virgina hills, where the government programs take care of lives of the children whose parents destroy their own.

 

I do not blame the children for these irresponsible actions. I blame the fathers and the mothers who bring children into this world, without the wherewithall and intent and desire to take full responsibility for their own child's health and welfare, education and the preparation of that child for a life of security, value, and happiness.

 

I am full willing to give up a few of my rights and a few of my dollars for the benefit of everyone else, because I know that 200,000,000 people are giving up a few of their rights and a few of their dollars, for my benefit.

 

But I would rather not see a whole segment of the population living in a dream world, where security, value and happiness are thought of as birthright that requires no personal effort and sacrifice to obtain.

 

I have no problem helping out my fellow citizen. It just is not something I need a law hanging over my head, inorder to do. And I would like to retain a general "feel" in the country, that when a problem arises we take care of it, and not wait for Uncle Sam to put together a powerstucture, with the whieght and authority of the Federal Government, to address local, personal issues, that are much better addressed, on a local, personal level.

 

Regards, TAR2

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.