United States of Entropy

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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

Yes I am. 310 million people against the 536 "clowns" AND the people that paid for them.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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

Each side claims to have the "facts" on their side. Each pundit I see on any channel is always spouting off some number about something and is simply shocked the other side doesn't see the same thing.

Seriously, if you step outside your party blinders for one week - you will see what I mean.

[anitram]

Though he repeatedly joined with all of his Republican colleagues to force the government shutdown, in a candid moment last month Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) complained that the Tea Party’s influence forced them to do it.

Walden, who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee (the House GOP’s campaign arm), reportedly told a group of top Republican donors that the Tea Party’s organizational strength meant that Republicans had to shutdown the government and obstruct a debt-ceiling increase.

“Listen,” Walden told them, “We have to do this because of the Tea Party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.” Noting that he often hears complaints from the pro-business wing of the party, he noted none of them get involved at the local level. “The Tea Party gets involved at the local level,” he added.

Any more questions on this?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Each side claims to have the "facts" on their side. Each pundit I see on any channel is always spouting off some number about something and is simply shocked the other side doesn't see the same thing. Seriously, if you step outside your party blinders for one week - you will see what I mean.

That's what they want you to think.

It's like people who deny climate change. You are falling for it.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

It's like people who deny climate change.

Anitram, does this qualify as an FYM version of False Equivalency?

There is no economic/political consensus on the impact of ACA (which is at the heart of this issue). However, there is 95% scientific consensus on climate change.

Apples to oranges...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

Any more questions on this?

About the Tea Party's abortion stance at the local level? This does seem to indicate local level involvement, but it doesn't mention abortion. It still seems they are more concerned with budget deficit and limited government issues.

[anitram]

No.

My point is that it is very clearly being articulated by Republicans themselves that this is nothing but obstructionism because they have been taken hostage by the Tea Party. You want to blame both parties? Really? While one is telling you that the reason for the government shut down and obstruction is to appease a small faction of ideologues?

Pray tell what there do you see constituting reasonable legislative intent? And where in the Democratic party do you see behaviour to justify your "they're both acting the same" view? Do we have a group of Democrats holding the nation hostage because we don't have single payer? Nevermind any other topic, let's concentrate on the shutdown and the related defunding of Obamacare.

The only way to keep claiming they are exactly the same is to employ serious cognitive dissonance.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

One side says allow, the other says remove. What's the difference?

Are you seriously asking this?

Party A won the election on a platform of X.

Party B ran explicitly and loudly against X and lost the presidency, lost the Senate and actually lost the House popular vote but ended up with control because their governors gerrymandered the seats.

Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of X. Teabagger members of Party B actually come out stating that just because the SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn't make it so (!!).

Party B attempts to repeal X 43 (yes I checked it), FORTY-THREE times. Fails.

During a routine budgetary measure, Teabagger members of Party B decide to have one more go at it so they attempt to defund X. Many moderate members of Party B then come out stating that the reason for this is because Teabaggers are dictating the course of action with tacit threats that any moderate Republican who doesn't agree with them will get primaried.

And you think this is the same.

GO WIN AN ELECTION, REPUBLICANS.

For which American people are they fighting? Not the ones that voted.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by AEON

Each side claims to have the "facts" on their side. Each pundit I see on any channel is always spouting off some number about something and is simply shocked the other side doesn't see the same thing.

Seriously, if you step outside your party blinders for one week - you will see what I mean.

Good Lord, man. It's got nothing to do with party blinders. Irvine and Anitram are putting forth arguments that you're ignoring almost entirely.

[AEON]

As you know - I'm actually a supporter of free, universal health care and not this ACA sham...

Anyway - something to think about:

1) It could be reasonably argued that this bill was passed without ANY bi-partisan support, thus ignoring the opinion of nearly half of the nation's population: The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. That's not exactly a mandate.

2) 47.2% of the population did vote against Obama - does that mean that almost half of the nation no longer has a say?

3) It could also be argued that the Tea Party success in 2010 was the nation's response of ACA being passed. That fact should be taken into consideration.

4) And of course - the general public may have supported Obama in 2012 - but ACA has not enjoyed majority support.

So, who is "listening" to the will of the people? The president that got elected but passed unpopular legislation with zero bi-partisan support (which is astounding considering the cost/impact of the bill), or the Republicans that are literally responding to the majority of the people that oppose Obamacare?