The problem, Fusebox, with how you've presented this is that you've skirted a key point: the budget has nothing to do with Obamacare. Passing a budget is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Obamacare has been passed, is being funded and has gone into effect, and the non-passing of a budget and consequent government shutdown does not affect it.
What the Republicans in Congress are doing is using the budget to hold the country hostage, their demand being that Obamacare effectively be undone after the fact. After it's already been put in place. It's the law. Congress is effectively saying, "undo this law, or we're not passing a budget". It's no different in principle than if they'd said "either you agree to change the speed limit on this expressway or we won't fund anything". It applies to every law, and it's basically legislative terrorism - forgive the sensationalist comparison, but the tactics really are analogous.
The other point is that it's really not all republicans, it's a group led by a Mr. Cruz of Texas. The Republican leadership basically thinks this is a potential disaster, and also pointless because it doesn't affect Obamacare and they don't believe the President will give in in any circumstance. I doubt he will, because all it will lead to is them doing this again with the debt ceiling, and then again with the next budget cycle, extracting further demands.
I don't like the tactic the Republicans are using and think that Obamacare deserves a chance to work, but the part I don't understand is why this can happen. Is the system working as intended? It would seem that the fact the lower house can hold back a budget suggests that it is a check and balance of some sort.
I guess I just don't understand the system and the point of having this option. In Canada, such a situation would be a vote of non-confidence and it would trigger and election. In the States, it partially shuts down the government, but to what end?
/confused
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-02-2013 at 08:20 AM.
The other point is that it's really not all republicans, it's a group led by a Mr. Cruz of Texas. The Republican leadership basically thinks this is a potential disaster, and also pointless because it doesn't affect Obamacare and they don't believe the President will give in in any circumstance. I doubt he will, because all it will lead to is them doing this again with the debt ceiling, and then again with the next budget cycle, extracting further demands.
Seems like Boehner is persuading the dissenting repubs, the smarter ones, into backing up the party demands on Obamacare
The lower house is now controlled by the Republicans. They have legitimate concerns about the implementation of Obama's prized piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare".
No, they don't.
The tea-party Republicans have 2 concerns, neither of which are legitimate in the sense that they are worth shutting the government down over: (i) that the ACA could become successful, and thus relegate hardline conservatives to the dustbin of history; and (ii) that a democrat is going to get credit for helping Americans.
Everything else is a sideshow.
After all, these tea-party Republicans who have complained for years that the ACA is causing "uncertainty" in the marketplace and destroying jobs are the same buffoons who are, by their actions, now actually causing uncertainty and destroying jobs.
And their call to repeal (or eliminate) the tax on medical goods actually increases the deficit---something they claim to be against.
And their refusal to vote on a clean Continuing Resolution actually ends up costing the federal government more money, because of all the work that went on last week to prepare for the shutdown, and the work to come to deal with the aftermath of the shutdown and the resulting backlog of work that never got handled during the shutdown.
Quite simply, these tea-party Republicans don't believe in democracy, nor do they believe in the "will of the people" that they profess to be following. The American people have repeatedly spoken that they like the ACA, that they want the ACA to be funded, and that they want ACA to succeed. The Republicans have lost a national election on the matter, they have lost state elections on the matter, and they have lost a Supreme Court case on the matter.
These people don't have any legitimate concerns about the ACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusebox
However, it is not lost on me that most labour unions, who are usually big supporters of Obama and Democrats in general, have raised huge concerns with some parts of the new law.
The unions are mostly concerned about the future viability of their "Cadillac" health care plans that they have negotiated prior to the implementation of the ACA. Don't be misled or lose sight of the fact that most labor unions will eat their young in order to stay in power---what they are doing here is no different.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HockeyIlliterate For This Useful Post:
I don't like the tactic the Republicans are using and think that Obamacare deserves a chance to work, but the part I don't understand is why this can happen. Is the system working as intended? It would seem that the fact the lower house can hold back a budget suggests that it is a check and balance of some sort.
I guess I just don't understand the system and the point of having this option. In Canada, such a situation would be a vote of non-confidence and it would trigger and election. In the States, it partially shuts down the government, but to what end?
/confused
It really seems to me like the perfect storm of a bunch of small problems in the system that would normally check-and-balance one another out, but have all aligned just right to cause havoc here.
I think it starts with congressional districts that have been gerrymandered to hell. And not because it tilts the balance so that you have a party with less than 50% of the vote getting 54% of the seats. But because it means that increasingly you have districts that are strongly for one party or another, rather than districts that are somewhere close to 50%. So none of the congresspeople actually believe that this 10% approval rating is actually going to result in them losing a seat, and most of them are right.
Seems like Boehner is persuading the dissenting repubs, the smarter ones, into backing up the party demands on Obamacare
Sorry, but I have not read up on this issue as much as some others, but how many people does he need to persuade? 20? 30? Wouldn't he only need like 20 people in his camp to split the vote?
I guess if he is trying so hard, why is this so difficult?
What is happening in the US right now is totally different than proroguing parliament. Virtually all US public services that are funded by the federal government are closed. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been told to stay home without pay. This isn't congress taking an extended summer recess (the equivalent of proroguing parliament); this is a near-total shutdown of the American government.
Not really, according to the CBC this morning(and they tend to hype things up), it only impacts 20 percent of federal employees(about 800,000) and specifically a couple of interesting items:
-No IRS audit services will be conducted
-No gun permits will be issued
Sorry, but I have not read up on this issue as much as some others, but how many people does he need to persuade? 20? 30? Wouldn't he only need like 20 people in his camp to split the vote?
I guess if he is trying so hard, why is this so difficult?
well,I wasn't too sure of this, so I found this. It's a good short read that kind of explains his position. Seems like there are conservatives, pressuring conservatives, sounds like grade 6 peer pressure almost.
But in the comments I found this gem, thought it was pretty funny.
Quote:
If Republicans lose the crazies, nobody will vote for them. Not even in the backward cesspools of bigotry where they can still get elected. Being not insane enough, not hating the president and the country with sufficient venom, has become the only crime a Republican can commit.
Jonathan Chait is must read of polarization politics:
Quote:
The second point is a normative one. The fact that a major party could even propose anything like this is a display of astonishing contempt for democratic norms. Republicans ran on this plan and lost by 5 million votes. They also lost the Senate and received a million fewer votes in the House but held control owing to favorable district lines. Is there an example in American history of a losing party issuing threats to force the majority party to implement its rejected agenda?
It really seems to me like the perfect storm of a bunch of small problems in the system that would normally check-and-balance one another out, but have all aligned just right to cause havoc here.
I think it starts with congressional districts that have been gerrymandered to hell. And not because it tilts the balance so that you have a party with less than 50% of the vote getting 54% of the seats. But because it means that increasingly you have districts that are strongly for one party or another, rather than districts that are somewhere close to 50%. So none of the congresspeople actually believe that this 10% approval rating is actually going to result in them losing a seat, and most of them are right.
I came across this word for the first time the other day. Without gerrymandering it's probable the Republicans would not have the power to shut down the government like they've done.
Since I'm admittedly dumb about American politics I like videos that explain things as though I was a five-year old...
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BloodFetish For This Useful Post:
Sorry, but I have not read up on this issue as much as some others, but how many people does he need to persuade? 20? 30? Wouldn't he only need like 20 people in his camp to split the vote?
I guess if he is trying so hard, why is this so difficult?
A simple up and down vote is all it would take to pass the budget, and an up and down vote is passable right now.
However, Boehner personally has to invoke it, and he isn't.
If there is one, singular person responsible for this right now, it's the Speaker of the House.
It seems like the house Republicans are going take the lion's share of the blame for this. Obviously that was already the case in the MSM, but even now on Fox News you have Bill O'Reilly saying to leading Republicans that they haven't offered up a clear enough compromise, are being unrealistic with what they want to extract from the Democrats and are therefore going to eat it PR-wise. For my part, O'Reilly is right on all counts. They are just making their self-immolation too easy.
Republicans look like they are going to spend several more years in the wilderness, out of both the Whitehouse, the Senate and the House. And they are doing it to themselves.
Long term, I think this is going to be bad for the US as a whole. They don't need more of the primarily socialist policies several years of total Democratic control will bring. But American voters seem unable to support the morons in the Republican party and I can't really blame them.
It seems like the house Republicans are going take the lion's share of the blame for this. Obviously that was already the case in the MSM, but even now on Fox News you have Bill O'Reilly saying to leading Republicans that they haven't offered up a clear enough compromise, are being unrealistic with what they want to extract from the Democrats and are therefore going to eat it PR-wise. For my part, O'Reilly is right on all counts. They are just making their self-immolation too easy.
Republicans look like they are going to spend several more years in the wilderness, out of both the Whitehouse, the Senate and the House. And they are doing it to themselves.
Long term, I think this is going to be bad for the US as a whole. They don't need more of the primarily socialist policies several years of total Democratic control will bring. But American voters seem unable to support the morons in the Republican party and I can't really blame them.
Any chance of the Republicans getting replaced as the 2nd party in a two party system? That's happened before, most recently in the lead up to the civil war when the Republican Party formed, replacing the Whigs as the main opposition to the Democratic Party.
Any chance of the Republicans getting replaced as the 2nd party in a two party system? That's happened before, most recently in the lead up to the civil war when the Republican Party formed, replacing the Whigs as the main opposition to the Democratic Party.
They're still way too popular. The only viable alternative might be the Tea Party, as it's favorability is strangely high enough
Any chance of the Republicans getting replaced as the 2nd party in a two party system? That's happened before, most recently in the lead up to the civil war when the Republican Party formed, replacing the Whigs as the main opposition to the Democratic Party.
Yes, that split is happening.
The divide you are mentioning is when the American Party, mostly fueled by race hate, took over leadership positions within the whig party, fractured it beyond redemption and then hadnt been heard of unil the most recent tea party movement.
There are major obstacles for moderate republicans to speak. It is political suicide from within their own party that is the most silencing, but also timing is an issue. It is too early to start trying to make waves before campaign season starts. Ted cruz seems to be the emerging 'all in' candidate so far for the republicans, but a smart strategist would be sitting in the background letting cruz spend his celebrity and burn his political and media capital. Unfortunately for republican candidates, having a political record to stand on decreases their chances at a legitimate run because of all this fear-motivated colaboration. Sort of like Obama not having a voting record on iraq and hillary clinton having a record of voting for it. It is staining to be associated with some of the votes that break along party lines, and the more disingenously conservatives these ideas get, the more staining these votes are for future higher office aspirations.
Last edited by Flash Walken; 10-02-2013 at 12:01 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Now is probably a good time for Edward Snowden to make a quick trip home to pick up valuables he forgot the first time and have a quick lunch with friends and family.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Aside from the ideological opposition to the government health-care plan, there is possibly another reason why Republicans are so opposed to Obamacare.
By law, anybody who signs up must also be offered the chance to register to vote. Most Americans register when they renew their driver’s licence. People eligible for Obamacare, however, are from lower-income groups and often don’t have a driver’s licence. Signing up for Obamacare offers their first real opportunity to register to vote. Census figures show that most of these people are Latinos or blacks, who vote primarily Democrat.
Seems like electoral districts should be something set by a nonpartisan entity. EDIT: Didn't watch the video, it addresses this, interesting.
My solution would be closest to #2 in the video, but I'd make it a little bit more like the BCS in college football. Have about five firms develop computer models for dividing votes, but make them adhere to strict guidelines, such as not being able to take into account past election results or demographics. Make these algorithms publicly available, as well as publishing how each state is divided using each algorithm. Then, a non-partisan committee in each state picks the algorithm that they want to use. As well, before each redistricting cycle, each of the computer models is compared to the actual votes, and any that repeatedly produces outliers in favour of one party or the other would be discarded for the upcoming cycle.
This method would: (a) be transparent; (b) allow human oversight to prevent some unexpected algorithmic scenario; (c) minimize the amount of effect that one or two corrupt or highly-partisan individuals can exert over the process.
Ted cruz seems to be the emerging 'all in' candidate so far for the republicans, but a smart strategist would be sitting in the background letting cruz spend his celebrity and burn his political and media capital.
Saw him on O'Reilly's show yesterday. He is very unimpressive to say the least.
Had no answers for why the House Republicans couldn't offer up a much more articulable, simple and reasonable compromise to delay the individual mandates for the ACA for a year in exchange for funding the gov't to the end of the calendar year. This would also have the added bonus of being much more easy to get the Republicans message out in the MSM as to what the Democrats have to give in on to end the shutdown.
Also, he couldn't or wouldn't even answer if he himself would support a simpler compromise like that. He dodged every question and answered with rhetoric. Americans will not get behind him in that sorry of a state.
Like I said above, the Republicans are going to be in the wilderness for some years to come. Perhaps a decade.
One thing I really want to call the MSM's coverage of the shutdown out is on how they are exaggerating apparently immediate doom and destruction affects the shutdown is going to have on the US economy. The Federal Reserve's QE/stimulus efforts remain unaffected by the shutdown (which is what is really driving the "recovery" - somewhat artificially in my view, but nonetheless). The Wall Street guys are still going to work. The 80% of American workers who work in the private sector (and who are therefore responsible for 100% of the net taxation revenue) are still going to work. Certain sectors of the Federal Government are unaffected (air triaffic controllers, food inspectors, uniformed military personnel).
Yes I understand that a prolonged shutdown of a few weeks like last time might start to affect the economy. But this imminent doom and gloom the MSM is spewing is a bit offensive.
Show me some measurable affects, then I'll listen.
Last edited by IntenseFan; 10-02-2013 at 01:29 PM.
Reason: To add video link
