FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gov't Shutdown incoming (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Gov't Shutdown incoming
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Will most voters even remember this shutdown in ten years then? Evidence would suggest that, like the Clinton-era shutdown, most people won't even remember this as a blip on the radar in the future.

And most people, with or without historical training, generally associate FDR with getting out of the Depression, not extending it.

And for that matter, most people don't have a clue who was president in 1929.

I'm curious as to what you think your generic, average American really knows. Your impression of his/her knowledge is a little spotty.

Also, the Whigs aren't the political historical comparison you want to make. They were a legitimate major party for 50 years and a critical half of the two-party system with the Democrats.

You want something more like the Populists. That's the closer comparison.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will you please to at least TRY to read my entire post before you respond?
I read your entire post, and then I responded. So, I succeeded at more than just trying.

To further mill down the point: if this ends up being a political event so pivotal that it's still in the common american memory of important american political events, whether people remember Boenher or McConnell will be irrelevant because if it is remembered it will be remembered not in terms of when individuals caused the shutdown of the government, but when a movement, the Tea Party, got the government shut down.

quote:
People are really going to be looking at who the president was, the same way most people blame Hoover (And to a lesser extent FDR for extending it) for the Great Depression
Most people do not blame FDR for extending the great depression. You might think so, though, if most of your political history filters through conservative interpretations of history and conservative editorial on presidential legacies.

The absolute most common layman perception of FDR is that he 'ended the great depression.' That the 'new deal' got us out of the depression, etc

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The most common perception to me is that WWII got us out of the depression. But then I am from the south [Big Grin]
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most people do not blame FDR for extending the great depression. You might think so, though, if most of your political history filters through conservative interpretations of history and conservative editorial on presidential legacies.
Like those evil conservatives at UCLA?
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/fdr-s-policies-prolonged-depression-5409.aspx

Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will resay what I said a little bit clearer so that you can understand why that is an irrelevant rebuttal, Borisl.

Most people do not blame FDR for extending the great depression. You might think that most people blame FDR for extending the great depression if most of your political history filters through conservative interpretations of history and conservative editorial on presidential legacies that purposefully or accidentally transmits the idea that most people blame FDR for extending the great depression. When in reality the common sentiment is that the common historical perception of people is that they largely think FDR ended the great depression.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So how is your point that most people don't believe FDR extended the great depression relevant, considering historical evidence that he actually did?

More to the actual point here...how many people actually remember any of the fallout of the last government shutdown? I mean...don't we all remember the great recession of 1996? Wait...

Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm with Sam. Most people buy the leftist line that FDR ended the Great Depression with the New Deal.

Sam, you didn't specifically argue with him but it bears mentioning that Wingracer is right, too. Most people also think that the military spending during WW2 helped, and that means there's something called a military industrial complex. This is also pretty commonly accepted.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
So how is your point that most people don't believe FDR extended the great depression relevant, considering historical evidence that he actually did?

More to the actual point here...how many people actually remember any of the fallout of the last government shutdown? I mean...don't we all remember the great recession of 1996? Wait...

Historians of the period pay a lot more attention to 1937 when Roosevelt ended his stimulus program and the country plunged back into the Depression again. Before that, he'd cut unemployment by 14% and brought industrial production back up to pre-Depression levels. When he cut spending to try to balance the budget, it sunk the economy again until he reinstituted the policies.

A lot of economists think that the reason FDR only got us halfway to recover is that he never spent enough. So the Depression didn't end until spending went through the roof during WWII. Whenever someone says "stimulus didn't save us from the Depression, WWII did," they must not understand WHY WWII had an ameliorative effect. It was because we spent huge sums of money. It was stimulus on steroids.

Regardless though, if you look you can find an historian or economist who supports just about any position regarding FDR and the Depression. There's a difference between that and historical consensus, and there's a difference between historical consensus and popular memory, the last of which is what Sam is referencing.

Popular memory and actual history are often wildly divergent.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Most people also think that the military spending during WW2 helped, and that means there's something called a military industrial complex. This is also pretty commonly accepted.

Strangely enough most people also think that military spending in the past 10 years caused a lot of the economic problems (or at least debt problems) we have today.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
So how is your point that most people don't believe FDR extended the great depression relevant, considering historical evidence that he actually did?

More to the actual point here...how many people actually remember any of the fallout of the last government shutdown? I mean...don't we all remember the great recession of 1996? Wait...

Historians of the period pay a lot more attention to 1937 when Roosevelt ended his stimulus program and the country plunged back into the Depression again. Before that, he'd cut unemployment by 14% and brought industrial production back up to pre-Depression levels. When he cut spending to try to balance the budget, it sunk the economy again until he reinstituted the policies.

A lot of economists think that the reason FDR only got us halfway to recover is that he never spent enough. So the Depression didn't end until spending went through the roof during WWII. Whenever someone says "stimulus didn't save us from the Depression, WWII did," they must not understand WHY WWII had an ameliorative effect. It was because we spent huge sums of money. It was stimulus on steroids.

Except that there were a lot of other changes that occurred during WWII that would have impacted the economy. Changes in monetary policy, increases in industrial capacity, large-scale rationing, etc.

If anything, WWII forced the nation to fully transition from mostly agrarian to heavily industrial. The new deal did not address the needs of a changing world. The changes necessitated by WWII ultimately did.

But you also should realize that there was a massive recession following WWII in connection with the sudden end of heavy government stimulus. This recession lasted less than a year, but resulted in a 12% drop in GDP. However, that recession ended with no government intervention.

Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WWII didn't force that change, though I'd agree that it cemented a trend that already existed.

People had been flocking from farms to cities since the 1880s, a process that dramatically accelerated in the 1920s and was cemented by the time WWII started. The biggest role the war probably paid was in ensuring that young men who came off the farms didn't go back to the farms when the war ended.

And the reason the recession ended was because of an historic outpouring of domestic spending from regular people who hadn't been able to buy personal luxury items since before the war began. They spent years saving up with nothing to buy. There was also a huge construction boom the likes of which we haven't seen since. You're talking about a situation that's unlikely to ever happen again in American history unless we're invaded.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
So, anyone feel like a small bet on what the bad effects will be? Make a prediction that can be measured some reasonable time from now, give odds, and I'll offer to bet on it.

Prediction: I won't get paid.
Where do you work, and which paycheck (ie what date) did you have in mind?
The U.S. government, obviously.

I will be getting a paycheck on October 15 for time worked before the shutdown. I don't expect to get one on October 28, and I won't be surprised if I don't get one on November 12 either.

Past Congressional decisions aside, we have been strongly advised not to expect any backpay this time around.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
WWII didn't force that change, though I'd agree that it cemented a trend that already existed.

People had been flocking from farms to cities since the 1880s, a process that dramatically accelerated in the 1920s and was cemented by the time WWII started. The biggest role the war probably paid was in ensuring that young men who came off the farms didn't go back to the farms when the war ended.

And the reason the recession ended was because of an historic outpouring of domestic spending from regular people who hadn't been able to buy personal luxury items since before the war began. They spent years saving up with nothing to buy. There was also a huge construction boom the likes of which we haven't seen since. You're talking about a situation that's unlikely to ever happen again in American history unless we're invaded.

Not true, the US could also strive to rebuild its entire aging transportation and energy infrastructure. Or build that crazy North American waterway canal project I've seen floated around.

quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
Except that there were a lot of other changes that occurred during WWII that would have impacted the economy. Changes in monetary policy, increases in industrial capacity, large-scale rationing, etc.

If anything, WWII forced the nation to fully transition from mostly agrarian to heavily industrial. The new deal did not address the needs of a changing world. The changes necessitated by WWII ultimately did.

But you also should realize that there was a massive recession following WWII in connection with the sudden end of heavy government stimulus. This recession lasted less than a year, but resulted in a 12% drop in GDP. However, that recession ended with no government intervention.

Dude. The United States accounted for 50% of the entire world's GDP in 1945 WWII ending the damn depression through massive government mobilization of the American economy for war and kept that way for a few decades after wards largely through the Bretton-Woods and GATT.

Virtually everything that happened can be explained by "The US needed a whole lot of stuff to destroy a whole lot of other's people's stuff and then after the war the whole world needed a whole lot of American stuff."

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
[qb] So, anyone feel like a small bet on what the bad effects will be? Make a prediction that can be measured some reasonable time from now, give odds, and I'll offer to bet on it.

Prediction: I won't get paid.

Where do you work, and which paycheck (ie what date) did you have in mind?

The U.S. government, obviously.
That's like saying you live in North America. Which department, organisation, TLA?

quote:
I will be getting a paycheck on October 15 for time worked before the shutdown. I don't expect to get one on October 28, and I won't be surprised if I don't get one on November 12 either.
Ok. I've 10 dollars for each of those dates that say you get a paycheck. (Not saying anything about the back pay, just that you get some sort of check for a nonzero amount.) What odds will you give me?

So, the bet, should you choose to accept it, is thus:

If ambyr gets no paycheck on October 28th, KoM pays him ten dollars; if he does, ambyr pays KoM 10*X dollars, where X are the odds to be specified by ambyr. (KoM will refuse the bet if X is too low.) Then, the same for November 12th, with a different X.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
That's like saying you live in North America. Which department, organisation, TLA?

That is exactly none of your business.

quote:
If ambyr gets no paycheck on October 28th, KoM pays him ten dollars; if he does, ambyr pays KoM 10*X dollars, where X are the odds to be specified by ambyr. (KoM will refuse the bet if X is too low.) Then, the same for November 12th, with a different X.
1) I am female
2) No. In case you missed the entire point of this subthread, I don't have any extra money to gamble; I am already out three days wages, and I have bills to pay.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
WWII didn't force that change, though I'd agree that it cemented a trend that already existed.

People had been flocking from farms to cities since the 1880s, a process that dramatically accelerated in the 1920s and was cemented by the time WWII started. The biggest role the war probably paid was in ensuring that young men who came off the farms didn't go back to the farms when the war ended.

And the reason the recession ended was because of an historic outpouring of domestic spending from regular people who hadn't been able to buy personal luxury items since before the war began. They spent years saving up with nothing to buy. There was also a huge construction boom the likes of which we haven't seen since. You're talking about a situation that's unlikely to ever happen again in American history unless we're invaded.

Not true, the US could also strive to rebuild its entire aging transportation and energy infrastructure. Or build that crazy North American waterway canal project I've seen floated around.
You're talking apples and oranges. Yes, rebuilding American infrastructure would lead to a construction boom that would create a ton of jobs and spread a lot of money around, but that still pales in comparison to the spending boom that followed WWII. You're talking about one sector of the economy getting an injection of cash vs the ENTIRE ECONOMY going bonkers from half a decade of pent-up demand and spending being released all at once.

A huge construction burst would put money into the hands of a lot of households that currently don't have much, but unless you gave every American a check for twenty grand and took away most of their debt, it wouldn't even be a dent.

And that's not including the gazillion dollars that the US government spent through the GI Bill.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The idea that an increase in GDP during/after wartime means a wealthier society is just the Broken Window fallacy writ very, very large.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
So how is your point that most people don't believe FDR extended the great depression relevant, considering historical evidence that he actually did?

Uh, because we're quite clearly talking about potential outcomes of historical memory about events such as this AND it is directly relevant to how it corrects something which was said but which was not true
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God, why didn't I sell stock yesterday?

These animals are actually going through with this.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now it's the time to buy stock [Wink]
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
So how is your point that most people don't believe FDR extended the great depression relevant, considering historical evidence that he actually did?

Uh, because we're quite clearly talking about potential outcomes of historical memory about events such as this AND it is directly relevant to how it corrects something which was said but which was not true
Sam is right Boris. Whether historians agree or not isn't the issue. Its how the common person perceives history. Sam is also right in how people perceive it based on how they were brought up or learned about it.

A simple Economics 101 class showed me FDR was actually part of the problem, but others may interpret that time period differently. That's fine, and was probably not the best example. [Razz]

Both parties are playing a dangerous game. While Republicans have more to lose and will most likely take the brunt of the backlash, there is a still a slim chance this could backfire on the Democrats. Republicans are being crafty by trying to fund the government piece by piece.

Advantages for the Republicans? If they succeed, they may still be able to defund Obamacare, fund the government. If they don't succeed, they will try to show that they tried to fund the government and programs such as the NIH, but that Democrats would rather play politics than help kids with cancer. You can already see some of the rhetoric with complaining about some of the comments Harry Reid made yesterday when speaking about the NIH.

The chance they are taking is the American people calling bullshit, which is the likely scenario.

This is also how it could backfire on the Democrats. If the American people come to believe that the Republicans are trying to fund the government but that Democrats are being too stubborn by requiring a clean spending bill instead of passing pieces to get people back to work now, it could hurt them. I think the President made a HUGE mistake yesterday by inviting the leaders of Congress to the White House yesterday and telling the Republicans there will be no negotiations. That is probably the worse thing he could have done. It would have been better for him to either speak from the sidelines or tell the two sides that they need to work together. Calling everyone to the WH just to tell everyone there will be no negotiations just gives the Republicans more ammo to lob at the Democrats.


Something kind of funny....The national hotline for Obamacare is 1-800-318-2596 (when made into letters spells F*#K YO) .... Someone didn't think that one through.... I don't think its that big of a deal, but I did smile.

[ October 03, 2013, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I think the President made a HUGE mistake yesterday by inviting the leaders of Congress to the White House yesterday and telling the Republicans there will be no negotiations.

source please
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I think the President made a HUGE mistake yesterday by inviting the leaders of Congress to the White House yesterday and telling the Republicans there will be no negotiations.

source please
I'll try to find an internet link, but that was what was being reported on CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC this morning.

Edit: Here's some

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/02/obama-shutdown-boehner-mcconnell-reid-pelosi/2908083/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304176904579111091033132998.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/politics/government-shutdown/index.html

I should add that Reid said the Republican leadership said the same thing that the President did, so it looks like neither side is budging for the time being.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, so he's saying that he's not going to engage in the attempted piecemeal passage or extorted 'concessions' with the entire government and default of the american debt being held hostage for it.

That's not a mistake, geraine. He'd be a complete and utter fool to have changed his position on that today.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the big spoiler alert here is that there is going to be a difference of opinion on to what extent the movement republicans driving this whole thing are making available as reasonable compromises. Right now, they are not. They are not offering compromises worth selling out into their system of holding the economy and the debt limit and the government hostage in order to coerce what they want from a gerrymandered majority in one half of one branch of government. What's going on here is that they're saying "Can I burn down your whole house? No? Okay how about just the second floor? Alright how about just the garage and that buys you six months before your house comes back to the table to be burnt down? No? YOU'RE NOT COMPROMISING."

We already know what their version of 'compromise' is. This should be re-read in the interim.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/all-republicans-want-not-destroy-economy-everything/69895/

/edit -

No, seriously, I think we can skip the whole idea of presenting what 'huge mistakes' Obama is making until he is concertedly actually doing things that don't work out of necessity for him while the republicans are doubling down on a course of action that the vast majority of americans blame them for and which the vast majority of americans hate.

/edit 2 -

and now capitol hill is in lockdown after a shooting

[ October 03, 2013, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.collegehumor.com/article/6889842/if-congress-got-stuff-done-like-roommates
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
the big spoiler alert here is that there is going to be a difference of opinion on to what extent the movement republicans driving this whole thing are making available as reasonable compromises. Right now, they are not. They are not offering compromises worth selling out into their system of holding the economy and the debt limit and the government hostage in order to coerce what they want from a gerrymandered majority in one half of one branch of government. What's going on here is that they're saying "Can I burn down your whole house? No? Okay how about just the second floor? Alright how about just the garage and that buys you six months before your house comes back to the table to be burnt down? No? YOU'RE NOT COMPROMISING."

We already know what their version of 'compromise' is. This should be re-read in the interim.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/all-republicans-want-not-destroy-economy-everything/69895/

/edit -

No, seriously, I think we can skip the whole idea of presenting what 'huge mistakes' Obama is making until he is concertedly actually doing things that don't work out of necessity for him while the republicans are doubling down on a course of action that the vast majority of americans blame them for and which the vast majority of americans hate.

/edit 2 -

and now capitol hill is in lockdown after a shooting

Out of necessity? You do realize this is the first time a president, during a government shutdown, says that he will not negotiate with the other side of the aisle? In my view everyone in government right now is too arrogant and too stubborn. I understand that any concessions on Obamacare would be bad for the Democratic base, and more specifically for the president.

I do find it discouraging that the president was willing to delay the employer mandate in an attempt to provide an incentive for businesses to keep full time jobs, but is unwilling to delay the individual mandate. It wouldn't stop the exchanges, it wouldn't stop those that need it to obtain coverage. The extent of the effect would be delaying a "tax" (the penalty) from being levied for a year on those that do not obtain health insurance. We know that the majority of these people will be the poor, as the penalty is 1% or $95 per household, whichever is greater.

Why WOULDN'T you delay the mandate like the republicans are asking? I can understand not negotiating on the defunding effort. Republicans came back and asked for a delay in the mandate and was still turned down.

Your article smacks of bias and has a lot of its facts wrong. It generalizes by saying "A one year delay in Obamacare" when what was asked for was a delay in the individual mandate. That means the tax penalty. That's it.

The only other piece of the ACA that would be struck down is the Congressional subsidy for the exchanges.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I understand that any concessions on Obamacare would be bad for the Democratic base
It's worse than that. Any concessions now would be bad for the president and the majority party for all time, because it would create a precedent in which the minority party would feel free to hijack the budget any time they wanted to force through changes to the legislation.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In my view everyone in government right now is too arrogant and too stubborn.
Ah, and here it is at last. I refer you back to the fallows article that hamstrung, in advance, this attempt at false equivalence.

quote:
Why WOULDN'T you delay the mandate like the republicans are asking?
"[I]f we continue to set a precedent in which a president — any president, a Republican president, a Democratic president — where the opposing party controls the House of Representatives, if that president is in a situation in which each time the United States is called upon to pay its bills the other party can simply sit there and say, 'Well, we're not gonna pay the bills unless you give us what we want,' that changes the constitutional structure of this government entirely."
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why WOULDN'T you delay the mandate like the republicans are asking? I can understand not negotiating on the defunding effort. Republicans came back and asked for a delay in the mandate and was still turned down.
Why would you? That's a serious question. I can't understand why someone would think this was reasonable. I don't get how people look at this situation and not see what the Republicans are doing as crazy and incredibly irresponsible. I really would like for someone to explain their view on how this is not the case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the answer typically involves one of two things the base has been fed

- this is a failure on BOTH sides to be REASONABLE and COMPROMISE! Obama isn't COMPROMISING! Equivalence equivalent everyone is at fault here equivalate!

- we were forced to do it because Obamacare went against the WILL of the PEOPLE!

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if I'm going to trust anyone to give me a fair and complete account of what people who believe things different than what that person believes, it would be you Samp, but I'm pretty sure I'll wait for Geraine to reply.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can say it without any mocking sarcasm and you're still looking at what it is. it's typically either a message that Obama is not compromising in a manner equivalent to or greater than the house republican intent and availability for compromise, or it's a sentiment that the republicans' hand was forced because Obamacare is against the will of the people.

Here's John Boehner basically hurling out the first narrative in its entirety: " The fact is that Washington Democrats have slammed the door on reopening the government by refusing to engage in bipartisan talks. ... : the president's scorched-Earth policy of refusing to negotiate in bipartisan way on his health care law, current government funding, or the debt limit."

as for the second

Bardella

Barton

Salmon

etc etc etc

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geraine...c'mon man, I know you know it's not somehow unreasonable much less hypocritical or arrogant to do one thing on a freely made choice, but to balk and even outright refuse to consider the same or a similar thing when someone attempts to put a gun to your head and take it by force. You *can't* reasonably attempt some equivalence of blame on this.

Personal example: my job (UPS) is tied in with United Way in a substantial way-every year they speak with employees and see what, if any, amount of their paychecks-a one time donation, a weekly deduction, biweekly, what have you-they want to give. I choose one of those options, and have since I started there, and didn't think anything of it-a small percentage every week is something I don't notice and often forget about until the renewal time. One year, for some reason-perhaps he had me confused with another employee who made a stink, maybe he was incompetent, I don't know, but the phrase 'You have to give' was uttered.

He may well have meant 'you have to decide now how much' or something, but in that moment the phrase registered it made me consider just for a moment never giving a dime again through UPS-even though if the supervisor had actually meant it, he had no way at all of making it stick.

How much more, then, when it's *not* a misunderstanding? When someone demands you abruptly lose a fight you won fairly years ago, not because minds have changed or the strategy is different but only because the same tiny minority that already lost in multiple fair fights now simply tells you 'I don't care about the process, you WILL do it my way or to hell with everything!' And they don't even make a secret about it.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
Why WOULDN'T you delay the mandate like the republicans are asking? I can understand not negotiating on the defunding effort. Republicans came back and asked for a delay in the mandate and was still turned down.
Why would you? That's a serious question. I can't understand why someone would think this was reasonable. I don't get how people look at this situation and not see what the Republicans are doing as crazy and incredibly irresponsible. I really would like for someone to explain their view on how this is not the case.
I can't speak for the other side, but I have heard them saying Obama has already delayed the employer mandate by executive fiat, so why can't the individual mandate also be a negotiable element.

[ October 03, 2013, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
That's like saying you live in North America. Which department, organisation, TLA?

That is exactly none of your business.

quote:
If ambyr gets no paycheck on October 28th, KoM pays him ten dollars; if he does, ambyr pays KoM 10*X dollars, where X are the odds to be specified by ambyr. (KoM will refuse the bet if X is too low.) Then, the same for November 12th, with a different X.
1) I am female
2) No. In case you missed the entire point of this subthread, I don't have any extra money to gamble; I am already out three days wages, and I have bills to pay.

I asked for predictions specifically to make bets on. If you didn't want to bet, you might have kept your prediction to yourself.

This aside, as the bet is structured, you'd only have to pay if you got paid. [Smile]

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
Why WOULDN'T you delay the mandate like the republicans are asking? I can understand not negotiating on the defunding effort. Republicans came back and asked for a delay in the mandate and was still turned down.
Why would you? That's a serious question. I can't understand why someone would think this was reasonable. I don't get how people look at this situation and not see what the Republicans are doing as crazy and incredibly irresponsible. I really would like for someone to explain their view on how this is not the case.
I can't speak for the other side, but I have heard them saying Obama has already delayed the employer mandate by executive fiat, so why can't the individual mandate also be a negotiable element.
I'm not talking only about delaying the the individual mandate, but the whole situation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Krauthammer nails it.

Also mentioned on the Diane Rehm Show today was the fact that Obama has a serious credibility problem, highlighted in the very recent past by the Syria/chemical weapons situation. That ended his foreign policy charade and left everyone (including many in his own party) wondering what the hell he means when he says 'red line'. Because he's don't it so often in the past, Republicans have good reason to believe Obama will capitulate. It's just a matter of waiting out this blame-game frenzy.

Posts: 563 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except the scenarios aren't really analogous, setting aside your blatant partisanship. In the case of Syria, Obama did come off with a serious competence and credibility issue-not that Americans typically think much of foreign policy. But in that instance, it came about because he made tough talk threatening something that would be politically...difficult is ubderstating it quite a lot. The cost to keep his word was much, much greater politically than to break it.

Here with Tea Party hostage taking, all signs point to it being politically disastrous if Obama changes his mind and capitulates, with all signs pointing to political advantage if he doesn't. Republicans were blamed for the last shut down, an the last threatened shut down, and the default, and have set themselves up to be blamed for this one.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That and seriously, this Obama's legacy at stake here. Obamacare has been providing coverage to millions of Americans and has already lowered the cost curve. It works, its widely popular, and is the primary thing people will remember of his Administration.

Domestic politics is entirely different from Foreign Relations.

quote:

Geraine's many posts ignoring the question later

I don't I recall you answering my question, if you don't like the parts of Obamacare that are "confusing" for small businesses, would you support Single payer?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
Why WOULDN'T you delay the mandate like the republicans are asking? I can understand not negotiating on the defunding effort. Republicans came back and asked for a delay in the mandate and was still turned down.
Why would you? That's a serious question. I can't understand why someone would think this was reasonable. I don't get how people look at this situation and not see what the Republicans are doing as crazy and incredibly irresponsible. I really would like for someone to explain their view on how this is not the case.
I can't speak for the other side, but I have heard them saying Obama has already delayed the employer mandate by executive fiat, so why can't the individual mandate also be a negotiable element.
Very true, but that still doesn't answer the question: what exactly would the US get out of a delay, except for another year of the GOP trying to defund/repeal it? If GOP congressmen really think this is the worst law ever passed, why should we believe that they just want to work out the law's kinks and let it take effect in October 2014? It's far more believable that the GOP House just wants a political victory here - so why would Obama be motivated to sign such a bill?

[ October 04, 2013, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]

Posts: 3616 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so i guess the fda ain't inspecting food anymore, i guess we'll just let the invisible hand of the market figure all that stuff out for us
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Out of necessity? You do realize this is the first time a president, during a government shutdown, says that he will not negotiate with the other side of the aisle?

Skipping over the dubiousness of the claim that this is the "first time" a President has done such a thing (really Geraine, the definition of a shutdown is a refusal to continue negotiations), let's get to the "other side of the aisle" part.

1. This is NOT a negotiation. There are no legitimate bargaining chips here. The legislation passed the house and senate. It was signed into law. It survived a challenge in the supreme court. It is law. It is the legal duty, in fact, of the congress to meet that fiscal obligation and pay for the Affordable Care Act. It would actually be *unlawful* in the broadest sense, not to fund it, as it is law.

2. This is NOT a negotiation. The House cannot, and no House in the history of our country has *ever* exacted the price of killing legislation in exchange for the passage of a budget. Ever. It is a bridge too far. It is a price that cannot, and would *never* be payed.

3. This only looks like a negotiation to you. And to some other people who have been hoodwinked, lied to, promised more than could reasonably be offered or expected, and/or are deluded and possibly ignorant of the facts. This is a dangerous, cowardly attack on the rule of law. Plainly speaking. It is an attempt to use the power of a majority in congress to exact a change in legislation passed lawfully, signed into law, and campaigned on by a President who won re-election on the strength of this as a basis of his platform. It is an attempt to do this by reeking real and measurable havoc upon the processes of government, and exacting real world, lasting damage to our governmental institutions, to weaken them, and to weaken our nation in the pursuit of a political objective.

This is the farthest thing, the farthest possible thing, from the democratic process. And there is NO form of negotiation that can work. There is NO form of negotiation that the Republicans can demand on this issue. There is no standing for them to exact *any* price for passing a spending bill. None, when it comes to Obamacare. That is the position in which this situation begins and ends. It will end when they pass a budget. They have the power to do that. And they will.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have to look at the long game. If this tactic results in one molecule of victory for the Republican party, expect it to immediately becomes par the course for the regular business of government. Not only will the Republicans have to deal with a future minority Democratic party that refuses to fund the things Republicans think are important, the Republican party will in during THIS administration, continue to do this. They might pass a funding bill for a few months, maybe even a year if we are optimistic, but they will do this again. The establishment GOP won't want to but their large Tea Party caucus just played this game, they got them all on board, they have no reason not to threaten another shutdown because they actually want the government to shrink.

The only way to establish order is to not give one single inch.

Not one.

If not one inch is given, the legislators will move to another strategy, and honestly this strategy *is* the result of their trying other legitimate levers of government and not getting the desired result. Think about how presidential appointees used to be rubber stamped by Congress, until one day, Congress tried using it to secure concessions, and it worked. It's now par the course to challenge EVERY single appointee.

The idea of us using the threat of government collapse or shutdown every few months in a sordid game of chicken as the means to pass routine legislation, not even new things, scares me. I hate that idea. Hate it.

[ October 07, 2013, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
You have to look at the long game. If this tactic results in one molecule of victory for the Republican party, expect it to immediately becomes par the course for the regular business of government. Not only will the Republicans have to deal with a future minority Democratic party that refuses to fund the things Republicans think are important, the Republican party will in during THIS administration, continue to do this. They might pass a funding bill for a few months, maybe even a year if we are optimistic, but they will do this again. The establishment GOP won't want to but their large Tea Party caucus just played this game, they got them all on board, they have no reason not to threaten another shutdown because they actually want the government to shrink.

The only way to establish order is to not give one single inch.

Not one.

If not one inch is given, the legislators will move to another strategy, and honestly this strategy *is* the result of their trying other legitimate levers of government and not getting the desired result. Think about how presidential appointees used to be rubber stamped by Congress, until one day, Congress tried using it to secure concessions, and it worked. It's now par the course to challenge EVERY single appointee.

The idea of us using the threat of government collapse or shutdown every few months in a sordid game of chicken as the means to pass routine legislation, not even new things, scares me. I hate that idea. Hate it.

Except this is exactly what happened in the 70's, 80's, and the 90's. It was a regular ocurrance for decades, but since we have gone a while without having one, it is all of the sudden a huge deal now? If negotiations during shutdowns never took place during other shutdowns, Clinton would have never balanced the budget, Medicare funding would have never been allowed to be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest, and we would have never gotten welfare reform.

I understand the negative impacts of a shutdown. What I do not understand is the blatant effort on the administration's part to make it as painful as possible. Today two elderly people were kicked out of their home near Las Vegas because the house falls on government land.

There are cones going up on a highway so people can't park and look at Mount Rushmore. Parking your car, getting out, and taking a picture obviously costs the government a ton of money, yet having someone police the area doesn't.... Right?

Earlier the Amber Alert website was taken down while the First Lady's "Get Moving" website was left up. (Following a number of complaints the Amber Alert site is now back up.)

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Weren't the previous negotiations over relative funding levels of various programs in the bill, not whether to defund a law unrelated to the funding bill?

quote:
Earlier the Amber Alert website was taken down while the First Lady's "Get Moving" website was left up.
There's no central Federal web sites control panel with little buttons to flick the various sites on and off. Each department decided what to do with their sites. The response by Federal web sites has been all over the map. Some are up, some are down, some have a notification that they will not be updated or that actions requiring human interventions will not be possible. Finding one seemingly critical one that happens to be down and one seemingly superfluous one that happens to be up is great for political theatre but is ultimately meaningless.

In this case it's trumped-up outrage as the Amber Alert website that was down was just a static collection of information about the program. Actual Amber Alerts were unaffected.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I do not understand is the blatant effort on the administration's part to make it as painful as possible.
That's because said blatant effort doesn't exist and is a conspiratorial hallucination of right-wing news sources.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
What I do not understand is the blatant effort on the administration's part to make it as painful as possible.
That's because said blatant effort doesn't exist and is a conspiratorial hallucination of right-wing news sources.
I genuinely haven't been following the shutdown news on any of my usual blogs or news outlets, so I am mostly in the dark about this. Barring maybe a few things I've heard in verbal conversations. So the following is a sincere question and in no way a partisan trap or whatever:

The thing Geraine described at Mt Rushmore seems like political theater intended to make the shutdown "hurt." I've heard a few similar claims about other unattended monuments like a veteran's memorial (WW2 memorial maybe? I can't recall).

Are these claims just right wing lies? Or did they happen?

Or is there an alternative explanation for why they happened, but they are reasonable actions and not the petulant ones they appear to me to be?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are no park services personal available at the Mall other than a handful of police officers. That leaves any of the normally staffed sites subject to vandalism, injury (they mentioned difficulty finding wheelchair ramps), accumulation of garbage (which can lead to an accumulation of vermin), etc. If they have any sort of insurance or maintenance arrangement with a private firm they may even be contractually obligated to close the area down when it is not being staffed.

Personally I don't think it was necessary to shut down that monument, but I also don't think it is blatantly ridiculous based on at least the reasoning I can come up with and not knowing the full context.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
a majority in congress

the farthest possible thing from the democratic process

I seem to remember somebody or other saying something like "elections have consequences". Probably some dang [strike]fascist[/strike] Republican.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2