United States of Entropy

[BEAL]

Shots fired on capital hill? Not surprising if true. People are angry. Especially start throwing out congress still gets paid during shutdown and you can see how tempers would flare

 

[PhilsFan]

Preliminary reports are that a woman tried to drive through baricades around the White House and started a car chase that ended near the Capitol. She then apparently got out and fired shots. One police car sustained damage in the chase which may have been where the police officer sustained injuries.

 

[AEON]

I think the Democrats are pathetic. I'm absolutely serious. Nowhere else in the world (yes I know the rest of us don't matter as we're not as free as ya'all) would they be considered a liberal party. I have very little idea of what they stand for and their leadership has been poor on a number of fronts over the last decade or so.

Agreed.

But the Tea Party behaviour is unprecedented

What exactly do you mean by "behaviour" here? The protests? The lobbying? What is it they are doing different (that's a genuine question because I may be missing something). Also - is there anyone in office that is officially from the Tea Party? As far as I know, comparing the Democratic Party to the Tea Party is like comparing the Republican Party to Code Pink - but that is perhaps another false equivalence...

and it is plain dishonest to suggest that there is the same sort of faction on the other side. It is NOT TRUE. Period, end of story.

This is why I need some clarification on the "behaviour" comment, because all special interest groups try to influence elected officials. How is the Tea Party different from that aspect? Are they doing anything illegal?

Your chart isn't helpful at all because there is no context there. Yes, we can establish that previous shutdowns happened and that they were driven by both Parties.

That's all I was trying to demonstrate. There is at least a little context in the right column.

That's like looking at WW2 and stating that all parties involved had started warfare in the past. So?

That's a false equivalence to my alleged false equivalence - because it was indeed suggested that the Democrats do not employ such tactics (which would mean in your WWII chart example - there would be a zero in the "wars started" column.)

 

[AEON]

This isn't just dodging the question, this is a strawman.

What IS the question?

 

[PhilsFan]

What IS the question?

She said:

Please find me 50 House members on the Democratic side that are akin to the Tea Party, both in terms of loudness, vulgarity, obstructionism and IMPACT. Really, go ahead.

 

[AEON]

She said:

I didn't think that was seriously a question...because of the 49 names listed in the Tea Party Caucus, I've only seen a few in the news - and they weren't doing anything extreme...

 

[AEON]

Preliminary reports are that a woman tried to drive through baricades around the White House and started a car chase that ended near the Capitol. She then apparently got out and fired shots. One police car sustained damage in the chase which may have been where the police officer sustained injuries.

The League of Shadows make their play...

 

[PhilsFan]

Preliminary reports are that a woman tried to drive through baricades around the White House and started a car chase that ended near the Capitol. She then apparently got out and fired shots. One police car sustained damage in the chase which may have been where the police officer sustained injuries.

Doesn't sound like anyone but the police fired shots now, but everything is still, as I said preliminary.

 

[PhilsFan]

I didn't think that was seriously a question...because of the 49 names listed in the Tea Party Caucus, I've only seen a few in the news - and they weren't doing anything extreme...

Define extreme. I consider holding the government for ransom unless Obamacare is defunded pretty extreme.

 

[AEON]

Define extreme. I consider holding the government ransom unless Obamacare is defunded pretty extreme.

I consider violence extreme.

Everything they've done so far (from what I've seen) is neither illegal nor unprecedented. They are using the "rules of the system" to increase their influence - as people have done before, and will do again.

Of course - I would agree the "rules of the system" must change...the fact that this is even possible seems totally ludicrous. There are too many lives at stake (missed paychecks and national security) to allow the politicians to use this particular tactic. Until then - we should expect more of this.

Again, we are nothing more than game pieces to these guys. And both sides are playing the game. The Democrats could choose to fund NHI, NASA, National Parks...and if they were only concerned about the "lives of the people" then they wouldn't hesitate to fund these and other agencies. But they are playing the "all or nothing" card.

 

[AEON]

Harry Reid yesterday...

Harry Reid: 'Why Would We Want To' Help One Kid With Cancer? - YouTube

 

[anitram]

I don't really have time to go through every obstructionist or otherwise ridiculous action they've taken and frankly I'm a bit surprised you're asking as it should be fairly obvious to anyone paying attention since 2010.

But off the top of my head:
- Obama and birtherism - driven entirely by the Tea Party and exhibiting some of the most vulgar behaviour
- Obama's nominees - unprecedented obstructionism, there is something call the Index of Obstruction and Delay which is computed and maintained by a professor at UMass who found that in the last Congress, the Index was 0.92524, or in his words“That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” he tells me. “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.” (During Bush's era it was 0.6176)
- Repeated attempts to repeal the ACA - I lost count at 41, yes, forty-one which were all a giant waste of time but the Tea Party members of the House would rather waste time than legislate or concentrate on the economy
- government shut down and debt ceiling shenanigans in which the Democrats basically folded until now when again the Tea Party republicans are insisting on inappropriately attaching a defund of an existing law to a budgetary measure. And by the way, have you not been paying attention to what the moderate GOP has been saying about these individuals? It wasn't a Democrat who called them "lemmings in suicide vests" as an FYI.

This is to say nothing of their ridiculous behaviour on the state level, where they seem content to spend most of their waking hours legislating activity in women's vaginas.

 

[U2NativeSon]

Define extreme.

social liberals... progressives

 

[AEON]

- Obama and birtherism - driven entirely by the Tea Party and exhibiting some of the most vulgar behaviour

The birth certificate issue was brought up during the campaign of 2008, the Tea Party was founded in 2009.

- Obama's nominees - unprecedented obstructionism, there is something call the Index of Obstruction and Delay which is computed and maintained by a professor at UMass who found that in the last Congress, the Index was 0.92524, or in his words“That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” he tells me. “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.” (During Bush's era it was 0.6176)

Well, the opposite argument could be made that this is the least compromising president.

- Repeated attempts to repeal the ACA - I lost count at 41, yes, forty-one which were all a giant waste of time but the Tea Party members of the House would rather waste time than legislate or concentrate on the economy

I don't get this either...

- government shut down and debt ceiling shenanigans in which the Democrats basically folded until now when again the Tea Party republicans are insisting on inappropriately attaching a defund of an existing law to a budgetary measure. And by the way, have you not been paying attention to what the moderate GOP has been saying about these individuals? It wasn't a Democrat who called them "lemmings in suicide vests" as an FYI.

This is a valid point. However, it is a "right" congress has.

This is to say nothing of their ridiculous behaviour on the state level, where they seem content to spend most of their waking hours legislating activity in women's vaginas.

How is this the Tea Party. Abortion is not a part of their platform. Are you simply attributing "all things conservative" to the Tea Party?

from Wikipedia

The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive. Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues.

 

[Pearl]

“When you have a small segment who dictate to the rest of the party, the result is what we have seen in the last two days. People need to stand up and not be afraid of the Tea Party.”

“We are finding a marvelous way to grab defeat from the jaws of victory,” said Fred Zeidman, a Houston-based businessman who was a major donor to both of George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns. “The way we are handling this has been a mistake from the beginning. I think we misread where the country was.”

GOP Donors Revolt Against Republican-Led Government Shutdown - The Daily Beast

 

[Diemen]

Well, the opposite argument could be made that this is the least compromising president.

Go ahead and flesh out that argument, then. There is simply no data to support that he is the least compromising president. Oh, there's plenty of media soundbites of him "ramming things down our throats, but to suggest that Obama had been unwilling to compromise is simply not borne out by the facts. If anything, because of the nearly totally obstructionist Congress, Obama has had to compromise far more than most.

 

[Diemen]

Also, Aeon, regarding past shutdowns - nearly all of them centered around disagreements over the budget. Democrats have already accepted the Republicans offered budget of $988 billion. That is significantly lower than any Democratic proposed number, and even the Paul Ryan budget of a few years ago. So... what's the issue?

That is why this shutdown and the Republican's conduct is unprecedented. The historical reason for shutdowns is a non-issue. Given that, the Tea Party Republicans are not offering any negotiation - they're using the threat of real, significant and lasting damage to the economy and welfare of millions of Americans to enact their own agenda, an agenda that lost them the last election. That's not negotiation, that's extortion.

And the ugliest thing about it is that, despite their patriotic rhetoric, it shows how little they actually care about the rule of law and respecting Constitutional process. If you lose an election, you don't get to ram your agenda through at the sake of everything else. You compromise, you make your stands where you have to, but you absolutely do not take the economy and livelihood of the American people hostage when you don't like the results of the democratic process.

 

[anitram]

From the mouth of Paul Ryan:

"The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years."

There you go. They are being obstructionist because they lost an election. As was so succinctly put in New York Magazine, "This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason."

 

[anitram]

How is this the Tea Party. Abortion is not a part of their platform. Are you simply attributing "all things conservative" to the Tea Party?

Please do some research into who has been pushing these bills and amendments and it will become clear to you. It matters what they do, not what they say in some vague platform.

 

[PhilsFan]

Who cares that the Congress has the "right" to do this? Why does that put them above criticism?

 

[AEON]

Go ahead and flesh out that argument, then.

Nothing is getting passed.

In the past, other presidents (recently Bill Clinton) were capable of dealing with the opposite party when they did not own both the House and Senate.

 

[AEON]

Also, Aeon, regarding past shutdowns - nearly all of them centered around disagreements over the budget.

At the heart of it - isn't the budget what this shutdown is about as well? That the US can't afford ACA? Or so they say.

 

[AEON]

Given that, the Tea Party Republicans are not offering any negotiation - they're using the threat of real, significant and lasting damage to the economy and welfare of millions of Americans to enact their own agenda, an agenda that lost them the last election. That's not negotiation, that's extortion.

Both sides are claiming the same thing. Which side should I believe?

 

[nathan1977]

despite their patriotic rhetoric, it shows how little they actually care about the rule of law and respecting Constitutional process. If you lose an election, you don't get to ram your agenda through at the sake of everything else. You compromise, you make your stands where you have to, but you absolutely do not take the economy and livelihood of the American people hostage when you don't like the results of the democratic process.

Maybe we can calm down the histrionics for a second. Congressmembers on both sides of the aisle have been decrying the ACA this week as being anything but. Given the collapse of other publicly-funded institutions (public education, the Post Office), I think it would do everyone well to sit down and figure out how to actually fund this thing before we start writing checks. It's a law -- fine. But there are plenty of initiatives that the government can't fund at this point (CNN did a particularly chilling graphic on this Monday night), and a poorly-constructed billion-dollar institution -- however well-intentioned -- needs to be thought-through first. I'm also not sure how Congress is supposed to fund the ACA when it doesn't have the money to do so. I agree that we don't elect Congresspeople to be ideologues; we do however elect them to be responsible with our taxes. I'm not sure that adding a billion dollars to the federal deficit -- however well-intentioned the initiative -- is responsible.

I'm not opposed to free health care, if there's a way to make it work financially. But the costs of the ACA are proving to be far higher than expected (you can't add millions of new patients without the doctors to cover them), and those costs will be absorbed both by taxpayers (married friends of mine are finding their costs suddenly quadrupling under the "bronze" plan), and by the government. The fact is, people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. Unfortunately, neither can the government. The problem as I see it is not really about the justice or injustice of universal health care. The problem fundamentally is about the unjust and skyrocketing costs of health care, and until that broken wheel is fixed, the government will only be contributing at an astronomical level to the problem.

 

[Irvine511]

Maybe we can calm down the histrionics for a second. Congressmembers on both sides of the aisle have been decrying the ACA this week as being anything but. Given the collapse of other publicly-funded institutions (public education, the Post Office), I think it would do everyone well to sit down and figure out how to actually fund this thing before we start writing checks. It's a law -- fine. But there are plenty of initiatives that the government can't fund at this point (CNN did a particularly chilling graphic on this Monday night), and a poorly-constructed billion-dollar institution -- however well-intentioned -- needs to be thought-through first. I'm also not sure how Congress is supposed to fund the ACA when it doesn't have the money to do so. I agree that we don't elect Congresspeople to be ideologues; we do however elect them to be responsible with our taxes. I'm not sure that adding a billion dollars to the federal deficit -- however well-intentioned the initiative -- is responsible. I'm not opposed to free health care, if there's a way to make it work financially. But the costs of the ACA are proving to be far higher than expected (you can't add millions of new patients without the doctors to cover them), and those costs will be absorbed both by taxpayers (married friends of mine are finding their costs suddenly quadrupling under the "bronze" plan), and by the government. The fact is, people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. Unfortunately, neither can the government. The problem as I see it is not really about the justice or injustice of universal health care. The problem fundamentally is about the unjust and skyrocketing costs of health care, and until that broken wheel is fixed, the government will only be contributing at an astronomical level to the problem.

Setting aside the factual-ness of the post, none of it is a justification for shutting down the government.

It's simply preposterous to pretend that both parties behave in the same way. They simply do not.

 

[Diemen]

Nothing is getting passed.

The Republicans have openly stated, numerous times, that one of their major intentions is to prevent Obama from enacting his agenda. Obama got ZERO votes on an economic recovery bill during the worst fiscal crisis the country had seen in 80 years. Not one Republican voted yes on a much needed recovery bill. If Republicans are more interested in blocking an administration than from serving their country, that's not a reflection on the president.

In the past, other presidents (recently Bill Clinton) were capable of dealing with the opposite party when they did not own both the House and Senate.

No previous president has dealt with a congress this focused on obstruction. For god's sake, the ACA is straight of the conservative playbook of the Heritage Foundation, and was a rousing success for a prominent Republican governor.

 

[Irvine511]

A Republican governor who was the party's presidential nominee less than a year ago.

Honestly. What world do these people live in?

 

[AEON]

The Republicans have openly stated, numerous times, that one of their major intentions is to prevent Obama from enacting his agenda.

How is this different from the Republicans of the mid-1990's? Yet, Clinton found a way to work with the Republicans and therefore improve the economy.

Both sides claim that the other is actually shutting down the government. If the other side would only allow/remove "X" - then we could get the budget passed. One side says allow, the other says remove. What's the difference?

 

[AEON]

Honestly. What world do these people live in?

The same as you. And they think you're just as nuts for not "seeing the light."

The problem is with the whole "us" vs "them" mentality to begin with. We act as if those in another political party are actually enemies, and not fellow citizens.

The real "them" are all of the clowns in power, and the real "us" is everyone struggling to make it in a game stacked against them.

 

[Irvine511]

The same as you. And they think you're just as nuts for not "seeing the light." The problem is with the whole "us" vs "them" mentality to begin with. We act as if those in another political party are actually enemies, and not fellow citizens. The real "them" are all of the clowns in power, and the real "us" is everyone struggling to make it in a game stacked against them.

No. There are real facts out there. Pretending the parties are the same is not good thinking.

You're constructing another us vs them when you pitch 310m people against 536 "clowns" in DC.