Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
In general, since the temper tantrum of the first obama election, republicans have been keeping everything they can from happening. We didn't have these problems under republican presidents because the democrats aren't GIANT dicks.

To be fair, there were also unicorns making us pancakes every morning.

Over in the base dimension, however, things were a little different.

Actually, I forgot to add a single word... has been added and bolded.

Now where are these unicorns that serve pancakes, I like pancakes.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
but also "destroy the federal government."

What. The. feth?

That's crazy pants man... that's like calling them terrorist.

While I appreciate your constant attempts to play the victim on behalf of Republicans -- it's the current GOP party line after all and I know you want to loyally tow it -- my comment isn't at all like calling Tea Partiers terrorists. The libertarian view of government is not compatible with reality. I'm sure you will disagree BUT just keep in mind what is going on this very moment -- the Tea Party has taken the federal government hostage over politics. The functioning of the federal government is not a proportionate bargaining chip in this debate -- EXCEPT that it is for the Tea Party. There are people, centrists mostly but also a fair few spin doctors, saying that no one wants a government shut down, that for the GOP this is a necessary evil. That is absolutely false. As noted in the OP, the Tea Party is glad to shut down the federal government.

Play victim? How about having an honest debate instead of playing the blame game. (I'm guilty of that too).

Can you answer what I posted earlier:
What was so bad about that last CR the House passed?

1) Individual Mandate delayed for one year... exactly the same as what Obama did for Big Business.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.

What was so bad and ridiculous about this? To me... this was a face-saving proposal for all sides.

 Seaward wrote:
My justification of the "Tea Tantrum" is that it's the only shot in the locker.

The Tea Tantrum is not the only shot in the locker ... the fact that you think it evinces that my understanding of the libertarian mindset is actually pretty accurate.

The Libertarian party has fairly liberal social views (no discrimination of based on sex, sexuality, etc.), but conservative views on the function of government.

In the present circumstance, the Libertarian view is that the individual mandate is overreaching by the government, and should be eliminated (along with much of the rest of the bill).

In general, there are many things the government does that the Libertarian party opposes.

The Libertarian party may not be for the total shutdown of government, but they are for shrinking it. The shutdown isn't the end goal, but I don't doubt that many Libertarians do take some measure of satisfaction in the government being halted to a certain extent.

Basically, the goal is to kill the healthcare bill, the temporary shutdown is just political icing.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
In general, since the temper tantrum of the first obama election, republicans have been keeping everything they can from happening. We didn't have these problems under republican presidents because the democrats aren't GIANT dicks.

To be fair, there were also unicorns making us pancakes every morning.

Over in the base dimension, however, things were a little different.

Actually, I forgot to add a single word... has been added and bolded.

Now where are these unicorns that serve pancakes, I like pancakes.

Did you pay attention to the 80's by chance?

 Manchu wrote:
Alfndrate -- And ... ?

Let's put it this way, under what I view a libertarian as, this government wouldn't have been shut down because government health care would have been done/relegated to the state level where each state can provide for their residents better than the government can, and the Dems and Reps would have agreed on a budget because this whole healthcare issue wouldn't have been at the federal level.

Under what you seem to view as a libertarian, they just want to watch the Fed burn.

There are plenty of reasons why I think there should be a Federal Government, but when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job on a variety of reasons they make a pretty solid example of why there shouldn't be a federal government. Running a Government should be a burden to the people you represent, not a lifelong career opportunity.

 Manchu wrote:
The Tea Tantrum is not the only shot in the locker ... the fact that you think it evinces that my understanding of the libertarian mindset is actually pretty accurate.

Not if you conflate the Tea Party with libertarianism, as you so often do.

Libertarians do not have a conservative view of government. The libertarian view of government is that it should be extremely minimal. The conservative view has more to do with subsidiarity than simply opposing government per se.

News channels are all a twitter about this. Internet forums are all fired up with the hating and the raging. Talk radio is having the 'gasims. I look outside my window onto the city below and what I see is, aside from those mentioned above, not a care is being given.

Oh, I just saw this "breaking news" story; apparently even with the government being shut down, the Earth is still rotating on it's axis. More at 11.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
The Libertarian party may not be for the total shutdown of government, but they are for shrinking it. The shutdown isn't the end goal, but I don't doubt that many Libertarians do take some measure of satisfaction in the government being halted to a certain extent.

I'm sure I'm opening a can of worms with this, but as someone that identifies more with the libertarians than the other two major parties, I don't want to see the Fed shut down, and I think if our representatives stopped being petulant children, we might actually get something accomplished that shrinks the amount of money we spend in a year.

 whembly wrote:
What was so bad and ridiculous about this? To me... this was a face-saving proposal for all sides.

I and others have already explained to you that this one year delay was just a one year delay until the next hostage situation for another one year delay. You keep acting like the House Republicans offered a compromise. They didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
but when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job

This has not been shown in the slightest.

I wish I could understand politics like a lot of people.

I don't get the situation - I read the entire Wiki page and maybe it's simpler than I think. The American government is literally 'shutting down'? As in, stopping a lot of its services and drastically reducing them? Shouldn't this be causing like, mass hysteria? Or is this some kind of euphemism for minor and temporary political squabbling/peen-wagging?

I'm not particularly bright when it comes to these things - well actually, with most things, so can someone simplify it for me? Thanks.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm sure I'm opening a can of worms with this, but as someone that identifies more with the libertarians than the other two major parties, I don't want to see the Fed shut down, and I think if our representatives stopped being petulant children, we might actually get something accomplished that shrinks the amount of money we spend in a year.

That's because you're not an anarchist and you appear to be capable of defining libertarianism beyond "anyone who doesn't want even more government."

whembly, I answered your question concerning the CR in the other thread, but I'll repeat the answer here briefly.

The individual mandate is integral to the bill functioning properly. Ensuring that all individuals who could potentially draw upon the healthcare system are paying into the system helps reduce/offset costs.

1. New rules, such as making it illegal to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, drive up costs. In the absence of the mandate, you'd be adding high cost people to the pool without lower cost people, which would raise rates for everyone.
2. As it currently stands, a number of "low cost" people end up with expensive medical costs every year (accidents, sudden illnesses), which increase healthcare costs by billions across the industry. The current system pushes those costs to the government. Under the individual mandate, those costs would be pushed to the insurers (who would have an increased customer base to offset the new costs), or if they stayed with the government they would be paid for through the tax/fine.

In addition, the individual mandate is a political issue, not one relating to the basic functions of government. The Republicans have tied two issues together that shouldn't necessarily be tied.

Republicans want the individual mandate removed because it is an integral part of what makes the Healthcare bill work. It's not some small removal, it's a major change with huge implications.

 Alfndrate wrote:
when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job on a variety of reasons they make a pretty solid example of why there shouldn't be a federal government

 Alfndrate wrote:
I don't want to see the Fed shut down

Which is it?

You say that the way politicians currently behave ("petulantly") means there should be no federal government.

Then you say that you don't want to see the federal government shut down?

I get it, I get it. You want the federal government working -- but only when it does what you want. Anything else is "petulant" and deserves to be shut down.

Yeah, this is what the Tea Party is currently saying, too.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I wish I could understand politics like a lot of people.

I don't get the situation - I read the entire Wiki page and maybe it's simpler than I think. The American government is literally 'shutting down'? As in, stopping a lot of its services and drastically reducing them? Shouldn't this be causing like, mass hysteria? Or is this some kind of euphemism for minor and temporary political squabbling/peen-wagging?

I'm not particularly bright when it comes to these things - well actually, with most things, so can someone simplify it for me? Thanks.

It won't cause mass hysteria unless it goes for weeks, but people will start getting unruly in a few days.

Essential services - military, meat inspection, air traffic control, etc. - stay open for business.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
whembly, I answered your question concerning the CR in the other thread, but I'll repeat the answer here briefly.

The individual mandate is integral to the bill functioning properly. Ensuring that all individuals who could potentially draw upon the healthcare system are paying into the system helps reduce/offset costs.

1. New rules, such as making it illegal to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, drive up costs. In the absence of the mandate, you'd be adding high cost people to the pool without lower cost people, which would raise rates for everyone.
2. As it currently stands, a number of "low cost" people end up with expensive medical costs every year (accidents, sudden illnesses), which increase healthcare costs by billions across the industry. The current system pushes those costs to the government. Under the individual mandate, those costs would be pushed to the insurers (who would have an increased customer base to offset the new costs), or if they stayed with the government they would be paid for through the tax/fine.

In addition, the individual mandate is a political issue, not one relating to the basic functions of government. The Republicans have tied two issues together that shouldn't necessarily be tied.

Republicans want the individual mandate removed because it is an integral part of what makes the Healthcare bill work. It's not some small removal, it's a major change with huge implications.

I answered you on that other thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What was so bad and ridiculous about this? To me... this was a face-saving proposal for all sides.

I and others have already explained to you that this one year delay was just a one year delay until the next hostage situation for another one year delay. You keep acting like the House Republicans offered a compromise. They didn't.

So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?

You ALL are ignoring this.

The compromise here was that the R's did CUT anymore spending (that they're chomping at the bit to do).

 whembly wrote:

Did you pay attention to the 80's by chance?

Time passes, people change.

Unless you were talking about pancake serving unicorns, they popped up in the 80's?

 whembly wrote:
So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?

Here's what Peter King, R-NY, said about it:

King said he's tired of being "a facilitator for a disastrous process" and ready to move on. He noted that while nobody echoed his call for a clean funding bill in Monday's meeting, some complained about adding the provision into the bill to make health care more expensive for congressional aides -- a move they said was purely political, to show that Republicans are taking a stand against Obamacare.

"They thought it was wrong to make a sacrifice of their staff," King said. "It's throwing red meat to the public, using our staff to get us out of the trouble we got ourselves into."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/peter-king-government-shutdown_n_4018806.html

 Seaward wrote:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I wish I could understand politics like a lot of people.

I don't get the situation - I read the entire Wiki page and maybe it's simpler than I think. The American government is literally 'shutting down'? As in, stopping a lot of its services and drastically reducing them? Shouldn't this be causing like, mass hysteria? Or is this some kind of euphemism for minor and temporary political squabbling/peen-wagging?

I'm not particularly bright when it comes to these things - well actually, with most things, so can someone simplify it for me? Thanks.

It won't cause mass hysteria unless it goes for weeks, but people will start getting unruly in a few days.

Essential services - military, meat inspection, air traffic control, etc. - stay open for business.

If this is the case I'm really surprised a situation with this kind of gravity isn't the talk of the town everywhere, even here in Canada. What happens to your country usually affects mine, yet no one here has spoken of it even once yet - I found out through my daily Wikipedia perusal. Also, if this kind of shutdown should only last a few days at most to prevent unruliness in the populace, what is the point of it? Surely just a couple of days can't save that much money?

Well I hope everything goes well, I'll be following this situation closely.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job on a variety of reasons they make a pretty solid example of why there shouldn't be a federal government

 Alfndrate wrote:
I don't want to see the Fed shut down

Which is it?

You say that the way politicians currently behave ("petulantly") means there should be no federal government.

Then you say that you don't want to see the federal government shut down?

I get it, I get it. You want the federal government working -- but only when it does what you want. Anything else is "petulant" and deserves to be shut down.

Yeah, this is what the Tea Party is currently saying, too.

Both sides are acting like idiots Manchu, the Republicans are stuck in hyper-conservative ways and are seemingly traveling farther back in regards to social politics, and allowing their interpretation of their religion to seep into the policies that they wish to pass because anything other than this is tantamount to the country burning to the ground and God reducing us to pillars of salt. The Democrats are over-extending their power as the dominant party in Washington to create useful but poorly implemented laws. I have been for healthcare for everyone in this country, but I feel that the 906 page document known as "Obamacare" is going about it in the wrong way. There are too many loopholes for people to prevent having to provide for their employees, and that people that should be the first out there to adopt it (the lawmakers that signed this fether into law) are going out and saying, "Hell no, we don't want to be covered under this." (not direct quote). Someone mentioned that the people of Mass. like "Romneycare" maybe it's because the state has a better pulse on the needs of their people than the Federal Government.

In my eyes, both sides of the federal government have failed in their jobs of representing the best needs of the American people, so in that light yes, I think everyone up on Capitol Hill should be shut down at least until they can pull their heads out of their asses. With that being said, the Federal Government shutting down isn't a good thing, and BOTH SIDES should have come to a reasonable conclusion to resolve this issue. I asked earlier why no one answered Whembly's question, and someone answered. That's fine, they should have been up all night coming up with ways to fix this issue, pass a budget, and keep this country running.

There are a handful of Dakkanauts that I've met in person and would consider them friends, if not close acquaintances, that are in strange holding patterns because of this shutdown. These aren't well off politicians, these are the people politicians are representing. If I was affected by this as immediately as they were, you bet your ass I'd be on the phone with Sherrod Brown telling him to fething fix this because I'm unable to provide for my family.

 whembly wrote:
The compromise here was that the R's did CUT anymore spending (that they're chomping at the bit to do).

Just think about that for a minute -- the issue is defunding the ACA and the compromise is supposed to be passing up cuts right now? How long until the GOP take the government hostage YET AGAIN to get the cuts they're supposedly compromising on now? This isn't the first hostage situation the House Republicans have staged under this administration (or even this year) -- and every other one has been about those cuts.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
If this is the case I'm really surprised a situation with this kind of gravity isn't the talk of the town everywhere, even here in Canada. What happens to your country usually affects mine, yet no one here has spoken of it even once yet - I found out through my daily Wikipedia perusal. Also, if this kind of shutdown should only last a few days at most to prevent unruliness in the populace, what is the point of it? Surely just a couple of days can't save that much money?

Well I hope everything goes well, I'll be following this situation closely.

Well, the point isn't to save money, it's to get the other side to blink. "Do what we want, or we keep the government shut down."

It's probably not going to work.

Kind of shows how off in their own little world our politicians really are.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Both sides are acting like idiots Manchu

I know you think that makes you seem even-handed and therefore wise. But it's simply not true. The attempted revolt by moderate House Republicans should give you pause on this score.

 Seaward wrote:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
If this is the case I'm really surprised a situation with this kind of gravity isn't the talk of the town everywhere, even here in Canada. What happens to your country usually affects mine, yet no one here has spoken of it even once yet - I found out through my daily Wikipedia perusal. Also, if this kind of shutdown should only last a few days at most to prevent unruliness in the populace, what is the point of it? Surely just a couple of days can't save that much money?

Well I hope everything goes well, I'll be following this situation closely.

Well, the point isn't to save money, it's to get the other side to blink. "Do what we want, or we keep the government shut down."

It's probably not going to work.

Oooh, I get it now! Wow, that's quite a bold move, and very inconsiderate to the general population. Sheesh.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?

Here's what Peter King, R-NY, said about it:

King said he's tired of being "a facilitator for a disastrous process" and ready to move on. He noted that while nobody echoed his call for a clean funding bill in Monday's meeting, some complained about adding the provision into the bill to make health care more expensive for congressional aides -- a move they said was purely political, to show that Republicans are taking a stand against Obamacare.

"They thought it was wrong to make a sacrifice of their staff," King said. "It's throwing red meat to the public, using our staff to get us out of the trouble we got ourselves into."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/peter-king-government-shutdown_n_4018806.html

No sympathy what so ever about "using their staff". None. They do NOT warrant/deserve any special treatment.

Here's what James Madison said in Federalist 58:

"Admitting however, that they should all be insufficient to subdue the unjust policy of the smaller states, or their predominant influence in the councils of the senate; a constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger states, by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes. The house of representatives can not 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 compleat 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."

The House of Representatives was given the primary power of the purse to do exactly what they are doing, nothing more and nothing less. It was intended for the House to refuse to pay for things in the government the people didn't want. Well, as Obama has said, "Elections have consequences" and the GOP can say rightly "We won."

I can play along to Manchu...

To be honest, I still think it's the wrong tactic for the GOP... but, what I object is you constant labeling that it's the GOP faults all the time... because you guys... the GOP are icky.

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives has no constitutional or other obligation to pass a funding bill that includes funding for Obamacare or any other particular government program. That's the true power of the purse.

So labeling Tea Parties and Republicans who refuse to pass a bill funding the federal government are acting like “terrorists” or “hostage takers" is just as absurd as Republicans who claim that Obama is a “communist” .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Both sides are acting like idiots Manchu

I know you think that makes you seem even-handed and therefore wise. But it's simply not true. The attempted revolt by moderate House Republicans should give you pause on this score.

Nah... Alf is right on point there. Exalted.

 whembly wrote:

So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?

Mentioned in the other thread, but the employer mandate is not as integral to keeping costs down, as compared to the individual mandate. The employer mandate may help, but it isn't guaranteed to put more people into the system, while the individual mandate is specifically designed to ensure that.

Also, while Congress has good healthcare, it's not the "free super duper healthcare for Congress only NO PEASANTS ALLOWED" version many think it is. It can be changed, and I wouldn't be opposed to some changes, but I think the whole Congressional Healthcare issue is overblown, and used more because it looks good politically to bang the table about than anything else.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

 whembly wrote:
No sympathy what so ever about "using their staff". None. They do NOT warrant/deserve any special treatment.

I agree. Congressional staffers should not get special treatment. Under the ACA, no employer is required to drop their employees into the exchange. Why should Congressional staffers be forced on unlike all other employees?

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Both sides are acting like idiots Manchu

I know you think that makes you seem even-handed and therefore wise. But it's simply not true. The attempted revolt by moderate House Republicans should give you pause on this score.

I'm far from wise Manchu, my posting history on here should be enough to alert the average reader that I'm no guru on the mountaintop, having 25 republicans voting against the spending bill with the added provisions does give House Democrats the simple majority needed to shoot down anything from House Republicans with this, that's fine. But isn't that simply so the government can stop being shut down? Or does it actually solve anything?