Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Goverrnment Shutdown 2013: The Obamapocalypse is here! :(


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#31 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 October 2013 - 03:55 AM

First, L O fucking L

Why is Congress be exempt from Obamascare anyways? TOTALLY NOT FAIR AT ALL. It's not like they have money nor employer subsidized health insurance or...oh wai
 
Hmmm...if only there was a difference between what happened when people spoke out against the PATRIOT Act and for the PPACA...

Health Care...surveillance state...same shit.

Believe it or not but HuffPo is one of my most visited sites. 

 

Yes, they do have subsidized health insurance which is something I find to be completely unfair when something like ACA is being passed. 

 

Increased prices of health care to a critical point with no way of opting out without paying a fine. Both deal a blow to individual liberty. Fair?

 

It's fair that they ask for what he believes is his key achievement to be delayed for an entire year in exchange for a 3 month continuing resolution?  Explain how this is fair.  Imagine this: The next president is a republican.  The House of reps is majority democrats.  30 hardcore liberal dems in the house demand that taxes be raised to 90% for the top 1% or they won't pass a budget and they'll keep the government shut down for an unlimited amount of time until their demands are met.  In exchange for the 90% tax rate, they'll give you a 90 day budget.  That might sound "extreme" to you but I guarantee that the demands they're making in regard to Obamacare is just as extreme to the dems in power right now. 

 

Even if the democrats were to accept this "fair" offer, what do you think happens in another 90 days? 

 

This is a horrible precedent for our government and is leading us down a really bad path.  The logical extension of this is that no law is ever settled if a single person in congress disagrees with it and you're never going to find everyone agreeing on every law.  This will lead to perpetual gridlock and probably a rewrite of the constitution if this continues.

 

Twice now you've written something like this.  I haven't seen a single person suggest that it's illegal for them to do this.  People think it's bad politics and bad for the country.

This key achievement has been altered and parts of it have been delayed for certain key groups. You want it go in effect then let it be done so in its entirety. 

 

I realize this is extreme to majority of democrats and many liberals all over USA but frankly this is how things work in a republic. Each representative fights for the interests of their constituency. I would expect the democrats to fight for 90% tax if they were elected based on these promises. 

 

I completely agree with you that no single law has ever satisfied everyone and I am sure problems will arise in 90 days but what do you expect when something like ACA gets passed by democrats without any republicans voting for it? You do not need a crystal ball to see the future. If I was Obama then I would make some changes to ACA to make the republicans stfu. 



#32 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 06 October 2013 - 04:09 AM

The housing market is beginning to seize up due to the shut down.  If this drags on for more than a month I'd expect to see home prices decline which could lead to more bank failures.  That said, I don't expect this to go on for a month or longer.

http://www.concordmo...-loan-approvals



#33 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 October 2013 - 08:49 AM

 

Twice now you've written something like this.  I haven't seen a single person suggest that it's illegal for them to do this.  People think it's bad politics and bad for the country.

 

I think it's a valid tactic for the minority to stand up to the majority. Of course, everybody will have an opportunity to vote them out next year. Chances are that 90% of incumbents will win, though, like always.



#34 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 October 2013 - 06:04 PM

I have a hard time believing that you believe there are "changes" that can be made to ACA that would resolve Republican's concerns enough to pass a short term CR before extorting again in a few weeks as that one winds down.

 

To believe that the delay is a serious offer, you would have to honestly believe in that in the intervening year, Congress would work to make the law more ready or better, rather than just buying more time to repeal it and asking for another delay if they havent been able to.  If you understand the reality of the situation as stated above, then you surely must understand why the Democrats cannot possibly accept this.  Obama giving up things in exchange for keeping a functional government is not a serious negotiation.  Democrats have already conceded by accepting the Republican's spending figures straight up, which is very nearly the criminally insane Ryan budget.  "You got a nice government here, shame if something would happen to it" is not a negotiation. 

 

There are many things open to negotiation once Republicans put the gun down.  Republicans have refused to assign conferees to hash out the differences between the House and Senate budget for 6 months, until JUST NOW.  Democrats are absolutely right to not engage in any negotiations whatsoever. 

 

The employer mandate is not an important part of the law.  They can pretty much get rid of this without significant issue, if we lived in a world where the opposition wouldnt just move the goalposts and make even more demands.  The employer mandate or caps to out of pocket costs should not have been delayed.  Businesses that dont like ACA and health insurers that dont like that part of it whining and dragging their feet accordingly is not legitimate grounds for a delay.  They should be told in the politest way possible to go Fuck themselves.



#35 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 06 October 2013 - 10:12 PM

Now the Republican's are saying it's their way or the highway.

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

If I were Obama, I would call their bluff, either give him a clean spending bill or let them saw the tree limb off that they're sitting on.  As the executive branch Obama would have a few options open to him.

1. Claim that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional since the country is constitutionally bound to pay it's debts and raise the debt ceiling himself through executive order.

2. Mint the 2 trillion dollar platinum coin.

3. Prioritize payments as revenue is received. 

 

I think the 3rd one would really be a way to play hardball.  Pay the debt with incoming revenue then with what's left only pay for roads, college, school, support loans, pay social security recipients, pay medicare/medicade, allow military contractors to be paid, etc, etc, etc in blue states and moderate red states/districts.  Then all the hardcore tea baggers that hate government can find out what will happen to their economy without the government intervention.  When their local economies crash and burn they'll come crying for help.

 

At that point, he could demand a clean spending bill, an increase in the debt ceiling, and an increase in taxes for the rich to 50%.  If they refuse to do any of those then he can let their states rot in their own little depressions.



#36 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 October 2013 - 10:41 PM

Prioritizing bills as revenue comes in cant really happen, not to any meaningful degree.  The government pays millions of bills every day, and its almost entirely automated/automatic.  Theres not a mechanism in place to prioritize bills.  Without a massive overhaul of the systems that are currently in place, this cannot happen.

 

The administration isnt going to do to 2, and its unlikely they are going to do 1.  Both are very controversial. 

 

There is one and only one way out of this, and that is the break the GOP and end using these kinds of tactics.  If it doesnt end now, we'll go through the same crisis in a few weeks as the CR they eventually pass expires.  What they should do is let Republicans continue to hang themselves, even if that means default.  

 

I'm with Erick Erickson on this.  The government should stay closed permanently until one side unilaterally surrenders, no matter how long it takes or what the cost is.  If its clear until the 2014 elections, so be it. 



#37 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:09 AM

now-that-the-government-is-shut-down-im-



#38 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:02 AM

James Madison already worked all this shit out.

 

 

 

Thomas Sowell also has some thoughts on the matter: http://www.gopusa.co...t/?subscriber=1

 

 

 

 

Congress is beholden to the Supreme Court in what it cannot do, not what it can do. It's an important distinction. While the Supreme Court may rule that Obamacare is constitutional, that has no bearing on the fact that a majority of the House simply does not like it. 

 

The true test of who is right or wrong comes November 2014, when the nation's largest and most complete survey is taken. Can you believe there are losers who don't want to participate in it?

 

I agree that there will never, ever be a Republican in the White House ever again, but the Democrat who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will always have that pesky majority in the House to deal with. The so-called Tea Party Republicans are not going anywhere for quite some time. 

As Obama is fond of saying, elections have consequences and the Republicans won the House.  They're exercising their constitutional powers.



#39 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:36 AM

The true test of who is right or wrong is a midterm that no one will vote in and after which a repeal of ACA will still be impossible?  Give me a break.

 

And Republicans lost the House by north of a million votes.  As the demographics continue to change and the majority is extreme enough to overcome their electoral shenanigans, they are done as a party.



#40 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:39 AM

There's no rule of nature that says that the US has to be a super power. There's nothing that says the dollar has to be the reserve currency. If the republicans think default is okay at the cost of being the reserve currency that's because they have no clue what that could lead to. Things could go real bad real fast if we default. From what I gather, the tea party would happily burn the US to the ground if it means getting rid of Obamacare.

#41 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:39 AM

Saying they have the right to do what they are doing is like saying the crazy DC driver had the right to own a car. It is what they are doing with it that is the problem.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#42 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:10 PM

Congressional and Senatorial term limits? Anyone? Anyone? I get that we're effectively asking a group of inept politicians to remove their job security, but when will the people start demanding this? Someone needs to douche this rotten vagina called Congress...thoroughly.

 

Over the last 20yrs, I can't think of a group outside of child molesters who I think less of.



#43 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:10 PM

Congressional and Senatorial term limits? Anyone? Anyone? I get that we're effectively asking a group of inept politicians to remove their job security, but when will the people start demanding this? Someone needs to douche this rotten vagina called Congress...thoroughly.
 
Over the last 20yrs, I can't think of a group outside of child molesters who I think less of.

Terms limits wouldn't matter and are just a red herring. All you'd have is a different asshole that did the same shit as the previous asshole. I'd argue that taking money out of politics is more important than having a revolving door of different goons.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#44 dilemna

dilemna

    CAG in Training

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:34 AM

Democrats are to blame with stupid Obamacare


I'm not opposed to some trolling and I'm guilty of it myself.

 


#45 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:50 AM

Democrats are to blame with stupid Obamacare

You realize that the shutdown and Obamacare are separate issues right?  The only reason they're at all related is because the Republican's are linking them.  If a Democrat lead House of Reps demands from a Republican President a tax increase to Clinton era rates or they'll shutdown the government and not raise the debt ceiling causing a default does that mean Republican's are to blame for lowering the taxes in the first place?  Just checking because if Obama gives in to their demands it's just a matter of time before this is reversed.  The government has never been run like this before.



#46 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:11 AM

Shutdowns over budget disagreements are a thing that occasionally (but not frequently) happens.  One side wants spending or revenue $X billion higher than the other.  This is something that can be hashed out in committee.  

 

Shutdowns because one side has been unable to get rid of a law - this is an entirely new thing.   Theres no splitting the difference here.



#47 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:59 PM

Shutdowns over budget disagreements are a thing that occasionally (but not frequently) happens.  One side wants spending or revenue $X billion higher than the other.  This is something that can be hashed out in committee.  

 

Shutdowns because one side has been unable to get rid of a law - this is an entirely new thing.   Theres no splitting the difference here.

Have the democrats tried to hash it out in the committee? 



#48 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 October 2013 - 09:24 PM

Correct.  19 times.  The Senate passed a budget 6 months ago, and Republicans refused to assign conferees, which is the process by which different bills passed by both houses get reconciled.  Boehner decided he wanted to go to conference for the first time, just a few days ago. 

 

Here is one of our favorite RINOs chastizing one of his fellow Republicans for exactly this:

 

http://www.youtube.c...Tifrth8qx0#t=84



#49 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:53 PM

Ha Ha!!!! suckers

 

All those already lazy gov't employees who are so over paid, now out of the job will get back pay when the gov't finally pass a bill...

 

Free vacation time + back pay = gotta love gov't jobs!!!!



#50 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 October 2013 - 01:04 PM

Saw this post and it reminded me of this thread:

 

President Glitch's signature legislation is running so smoothly - just a list of some of the headlines around the country:

For $634,320,919 dollars of taxpayer money we get:

Obamacare website cost more than FACEBOOK, TWITTER, LINKEDIN, INSTAGRAM...

'How can we tax people for not buying a product from a website that doesn't work?'

Major insurers, Dem allies repeatedly warned Obama admin...

REPORT: WH knew site might not be ready...

POLL: Just 1 in 10 report success...

DNC head says site designed for 50,000 max...

Once you get in, you can't get out...

Crazzzzzzzy code...

'It looks like nobody tested it'...

WASHPOST: Not code, but 'outdated, costly, buggy technology'...

WH won't release numbers of enrolees,,horror stories copping up by the day,,,and the security issues haven't even hit their stride yet.

But delaying it year is a definite NO! (and why? politics)

 
 

 

Also I agree with Finger Shocker, we are gonna pay back pay to people who didn't actually have to work? Nice shutdown, gov't. :roll:
  •  


#51 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 October 2013 - 03:48 PM

 

Also I agree with Finger Shocker, we are gonna pay back pay to people who didn't actually have to work? Nice shutdown, gov't. :roll:

The purpose of the shut down isn't to save money on discretionary spending...



#52 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:46 PM

Terms limits wouldn't matter and are just a red herring. All you'd have is a different asshole that did the same shit as the previous asshole. I'd argue that taking money out of politics is more important than having a revolving door of different goons.

I disagree. I think you will still get a pool of assholes running, but they won't become institutions like the old fuckwads we have now. And if you elected a loser to the Senate, and they got 8yrs total to fill a seat, then they don't have enough time to create that legacy of uselessness. They'd be an equivalent to a bad two term President (which we've had in the past few cycles). But as you mention, money is the big thing. If you only have 8yrs to be in office, you can try to get as much money, lobbyist support and bullshit as you can in a small amount of time, but you at least need to go out and try to build those alliances, and work for you money. As it goes now, the lobbyist buys you early on, and has a voice for the next 40 years through you.

 

If 9/10 people who run for federal office positions are horrible pieces of shit, which I would argue they are, you would have to go through more of them each election, which means you've got a better chance of finding that one gem. I think there would be HUGE value in requiring high turnover in Congress. It would force more of them to actually work in the private sector after their political careers are over. There are so many advantages. It can't possibly be worse, and it has a chance to be slightly better.

 

Imagine a world where Harry Reid and John McCain haven't been in public office for all or most of your life?



#53 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:51 PM

I disagree. I think you will still get a pool of assholes running, but they won't become institutions like the old fuckwads we have now. And if you elected a loser to the Senate, and they got 8yrs total to fill a seat, then they don't have enough time to create that legacy of uselessness. They'd be an equivalent to a bad two term President (which we've had in the past few cycles). But as you mention, money is the big thing. If you only have 8yrs to be in office, you can try to get as much money, lobbyist support and bullshit as you can in a small amount of time, but you at least need to go out and try to build those alliances, and work for you money. As it goes now, the lobbyist buys you early on, and has a voice for the next 40 years through you.

 

If 9/10 people who run for federal office positions are horrible pieces of shit, which I would argue they are, you would have to go through more of them each election, which means you've got a better chance of finding that one gem. I think there would be HUGE value in requiring high turnover in Congress. It would force more of them to actually work in the private sector after their political careers are over. There are so many advantages. It can't possibly be worse, and it has a chance to be slightly better.

 

Imagine a world where Harry Reid and John McCain haven't been in public office for all or most of your life?

"All" it takes is a Constitutional Amendment.  Good luck.



#54 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:47 PM

"All" it takes is a Constitutional Amendment.  Good luck.

Oh, I get it. We would need to rely on Congress to vote themselves out of job security, which will never happen. But if it could, I think the worst outcome would be status quo in terms of quality of representation, and the best would be an improvement. It will never happen, but to me, serving in Congress should not be a lifelong career.



#55 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:23 PM

Whelp, looks like the Republican's just "unconditionally surrendered".

http://www.huffingto..._n_4066123.html

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1



#56 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:15 PM

Looks like it has conditions to me.  They want to negotiate around the only the shutdown and not the debt ceiling.  They've let one hostage go and want to talk about the other one.  They should continue to go Fuck themselves while we continue to shit on them.



#57 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:22 PM

Looks like it has conditions to me.  They want to negotiate around the only the shutdown and not the debt ceiling.  They've let one hostage go and want to talk about the other one.  They should continue to go Fuck themselves while we continue to shit on them.


I'm actually pretty happy about this. It's the most reasonable thing they've done in years. The budgeting process is how you adjust spending if you are unhappy with it. Defaulting on the country's debt should never be a possibility.

#58 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:41 PM

Well that didn't last long.  The House and Obama are happy with it but Reid is refusing to go along.

http://www.bostonglo...vPVK/story.html



#59 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:41 PM

I disagree. I think you will still get a pool of assholes running, but they won't become institutions like the old fuckwads we have now. And if you elected a loser to the Senate, and they got 8yrs total to fill a seat, then they don't have enough time to create that legacy of uselessness. They'd be an equivalent to a bad two term President (which we've had in the past few cycles). But as you mention, money is the big thing. If you only have 8yrs to be in office, you can try to get as much money, lobbyist support and bullshit as you can in a small amount of time, but you at least need to go out and try to build those alliances, and work for you money. As it goes now, the lobbyist buys you early on, and has a voice for the next 40 years through you.
 
If 9/10 people who run for federal office positions are horrible pieces of shit, which I would argue they are, you would have to go through more of them each election, which means you've got a better chance of finding that one gem. I think there would be HUGE value in requiring high turnover in Congress. It would force more of them to actually work in the private sector after their political careers are over. There are so many advantages. It can't possibly be worse, and it has a chance to be slightly better.
 
Imagine a world where Harry Reid and John McCain haven't been in public office for all or most of your life?

Again, what's the difference between a corporation/industry owning 1 guy for 40 years and a possible 20 guys for 40 years? The 20 guys because the corporate/industrial lobby STILL pays for them. More "choices" only changes the player; not the game.

There will never be that magical unicorn of a candidate because it's not what the system is made to allow and it never was.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#60 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:05 PM

Well that didn't last long.  The House and Obama are happy with it but Reid is refusing to go along.
http://www.bostonglo...vPVK/story.html

Well, the "compromise" just means that we're going to go through the same thing again in 6 weeks. It's almost routine at this point, which it shouldn't be.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!