posted
The seemingly irreparably fractured Republican Party is just trying to ruin Obama's presidency. It's really that simple.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except they aren't. The ones that matter the most here, the ones that are utilizing terrible hostage-taking terrorism politics that would change everything for the worse if Obama capitulates to them?
They tend to be from heavily gerrymandered districts. They don't have to care about the record gulf in favorability ratings between the parties granting huge leads to liberals, and the fact that approval ratings for the GOP just tanked to 28%, because their districts have been rewritten to assure them nearly complete job security.
quote:The vast majority of GOP lawmakers are safely ensconced in districts that, based on the voter rolls, would never think of electing a Democrat. Their bigger worry is that someone even more conservative than they are — bankrolled by a cadre of uncompromising conservative groups — might challenge them in a primary.
quote:The prevailing wisdom ahead of the government shutdown was that tea party lawmakers who agitated for it would fold within a few days, once they got an earful from angry constituents and felt the sting of bad headlines. House GOP leaders called it a “touch the stove” moment for the band of Republican rebels, when ideology would finally meet reality.
But there’s another reality that explains why that thinking may well be wrong, and the country could be in for a protracted standoff: Most of the Republicans digging in have no reason to fear voters will ever punish them for it.
quote:The congressional map is far more gerrymandered today than it was 17 years ago during the last shutdown, when House Speaker Newt Gingrich was negotiating with President Bill Clinton. According to David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the Cook Political Report, 79 of the 236 House Republicans serving during the last shutdown resided in districts that Clinton won in 1992. Today, just 17 of the 232 House Republicans are in districts that Obama won in 2012.
“Is redistricting a big deal in the sense that there is a greater threat from a primary than a general election? The answer to that is yes,” said David Winston, a Republican pollster and adviser to Boehner. “It’s clearly an element.”
quote:That's fine, however how do you explain him allowing an amnesty rally but denying WWII vets access to the same location? Pelosi thanked him during the rally for allowing them to meet. Was Pelosi just full of hot air, (Likely) or did the administration ok the rally?
Large-scale rallys on public land generally require a permit and a condition of the permit is that the rally organizers provide adequate security, sanitation, clean-up, etc. It's doubtful that any NPS personal are required to work to support a rally, though some may be employed directly by the event organizers. Security is often provided by off-duty police officers hired by the organizers.
Why is it closed now? Why weren't WWII vets allowed to go there? And if they were not able to go, why was the amnesty rally allowed?
I notice, and I doubt I am the only one, that these questions are answered in the quote that they are responding to.
Is it that you don't like the answers? That you don't understand the answers? That you don't accept the answers? Because you have BEEN GIVEN the answers by me, by matt, by Lyrhawn, and by others as well, and you don't acknowledge them as actual answers, and I don't see why that is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unironic, unsarcastic answer: it is literally because it does not match the narrative being sold from the sites he gets the interpretation of the "intentionally damaging" shutdown from.
Related news: Utah just pulled off an incredible bit of legal wrangling just to manage to get the national parks in that state reopened on the Governor's dime using "site-specific" personnel that satisfies the restrictions of the 2011 shutdown system plan, and once they had worked this out, Sally Jewell (Secretary of the Interior) immediately jumped on board to get the parks opened.
Note that this doesn't fit the "intentionally damaging" narrative (if that were true, they'd continue to stick it to Utah, which be losing hundreds of millions of dollars during optimum season revenue) but this will be intentionally used for that narrative anyway by misconstruing (intentionally) the legal nuance that Utah worked to get the national parks reopened again in spite of the shutdown.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other news, as a salmonella outbreak occurs during the shutdown, the CDC has been spontaneously relabeled as all-essential and they're trying to get that department back to work as soon as possible.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole essential/non-essential division captures something about the US. So having safely inspected food, making sure pollution doesn't poison people, and controlling disease outbreaks? Non-essential. Continuing to spy on your own citizens and bomb foreigners? Totally essential.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Except they aren't. The ones that matter the most here, the ones that are utilizing terrible hostage-taking terrorism politics that would change everything for the worse if Obama capitulates to them?
They tend to be from heavily gerrymandered districts. They don't have to care about the record gulf in favorability ratings between the parties granting huge leads to liberals, and the fact that approval ratings for the GOP just tanked to 28%, because their districts have been rewritten to assure them nearly complete job security.
For what it's worth, a new poll shows that 51 percent of Utahns now disapprove of Mike Lee, a swing of 10 points from just four months ago. And most of those who disapprove strongly disapprove.
Of course, he's a senator, so there are no gerrymandered districts to keep him safe. But we'll see whether Utahns still disapprove of him enough to vote in someone different next time.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, good to hear about mike lee, I guess.
other news part of the post: so how about that utter and complete disaster of a snowstorm in the dakotas, right when there wasn't a government around to do jack-all about it. you know, that one you totally haven't heard about? i totally didn't.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In 1914, cheering throngs all over Europe sent their boys off to war confident that victory could be achieved in a few months with limited casualties. Instead, for the next four years, armies on both sides endured horrible death tolls in the trenches of France. And, increasingly, soldiers found it impossible to recall what they were fighting for.
So it was when the House Republicans shut down the government confident that they could win major concessions from the White House in a few days. Now they are hunkered down in the trenches, with public opinion turning against them, desperate for any rationale to abandon the battlefield. But they cannot simply surrender because … well … that would mean that they have been bleeding in the polls for nothing. Rarely has a political party lost so much so rapidly from a series of strategic blunders.
posted
Since a lot of you seem to know way more about this than I do, let me ask you this:
My roommate says he believes that this whole fight is a good thing because he thinks Obamacare is evil and needs to be abolished. However, if I'm understanding it right, Obamacare doesn't affect him at all, since he already has insurance. Am I right about this or will it really affect everybody? I don't think we'll be getting taxed by it, and I've tried explaining that to him, but he insists that we will. What do you guys think?
Also, that video on the debt ceiling was very informative. Thank you.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The answer to that question is somewhat nuanced. Insurance premiums have been spiking ever since Obamacare was announced in 2009. There are cost controls in place now that don't let them raise rates past a certain point, though I think they're very laxly enforced.
Premiums for a lot of people will be less than what they otherwise would have been, like individuals, small businesses that have only a small handful of employees, older people and those with pre-existing conditions. Young people are the only ones who really get hit with huge premium hikes because we're essentially subsidizing older people.
But if you already have insurance through your work? It's difficult to say. If he's an hourly employee, it's possible they could cut his hours to get him below full time to kill his health care benefits. Large companies have to pay either taxes or insurance premiums now where before it was largely optional. But I've talked to a few people who are in charge of their work's insurance plans and a lot of them say that the rates are going up left and right.
Is that Obamacare's fault? Yes and no. Obamacare mandates that all plans offered in the country meet a minimum standard of criteria that's higher than what many plans used to cover. Since all plans must now offer that standard, the price for many low cost plans has gone up, but so too has their level of coverage. More is being paid for more and better services. But a lot of it is also price gouging on the part of the insurance companies. They're managed to create a narrative that Obamacare costs more because they're charging more. It's pretty clever, really.
As far as the cost to your room mate? Doubtful he'll even notice. If he already has insurance, there's no direct tax effect on him. His insurance rates might go up, but that only affects what his work pays for his premium if they cover the whole premium. That could affect him eventually if they decide to dump him and pay the penalty, but he'll face no direct tax from Obamacare.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Since a lot of you seem to know way more about this than I do, let me ask you this:
My roommate says he believes that this whole fight is a good thing because he thinks Obamacare is evil and needs to be abolished. However, if I'm understanding it right, Obamacare doesn't affect him at all, since he already has insurance. Am I right about this or will it really affect everybody? I don't think we'll be getting taxed by it, and I've tried explaining that to him, but he insists that we will. What do you guys think?
Also, that video on the debt ceiling was very informative. Thank you.
There's a nuanced argument to be had that while well intention-ed the ACA has a number of flaws that wouldn't exist either by extending Medicare-for-all or adopting singlepayer like a number of other industrialized first world nations.
What the ACA has done is lower the cost curve, the rate in which medical costs are increasing in the United States, as well as preventing those with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage.
Though, I'm likely thinking your roommate thinks its the path to socialism and doesn't support his taxes supporting people he doesn't want to support because those people think his success is evil in some weird siege mentality.
Hard to determine without knowing how he's evaluating "evil".
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, ACA has NOT lowered the cost curve of overall medical costs. That curve had slowed in the years before the ACA all by itself, and recent reports I've read show that there's a decent chance it's actually increased the rate somewhat.
ACA isn't an overall cost control mechanism. It's an attempt to level the playing field by creating the first honest to goodness health insurance marketplace in the hopes that competition drives down insurance rates, but it doesn't directly address what drives up prices. Part of why it's actually driving premiums up is that forcing companies to take on expensive customers they used to deny coverage to and limited what they can charge those customers means everyone else has to directly subsidize their cost. Previously, it was an indirect subsidy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's not an accurate description of the video. House Republicans changed the rule so that only the Speaker of the House or his assigned depute can initiate a vote to reopen the government. Whereas in the past anybody could have passed that motion.
It's a weasely thing to do, but that's a far cry from forcing the government to shutdown by changing procedural rules.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. If you believe that he House was likely to vote to reopen the government using a combo of democratic and moderate Republican votes, then that rule change made it impossible for Dems to force the voice and therefore ensured the government would shut down and stay shut down.
So in essence, yes, the rule change did in fact mean the shut down and stayed down.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. If you believe that he House was likely to vote to reopen the government using a combo of democratic and moderate Republican votes, then that rule change made it impossible for Dems to force the voice and therefore ensured the government would shut down and stay shut down.
So in essence, yes, the rule change did in fact mean the shut down and stayed down.
Forced it to stay shutdown sure. Forced it to shutdown no. This mechanism does not make the shutdown happen.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But without it the shutdown would have lasted a matter of hours. The senate passed their clean funding bill the next day.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If things are happening about the way I think they are happening, the effort to throw Ted Cruz under the bus has probably already begun in earnest.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But without it the shutdown would have lasted a matter of hours.
And you don't see any difference between causing a shutdown that would have lasted a matter of hours and ensuring that a shutdown already in effect stayed in effect?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But without it the shutdown would have lasted a matter of hours. The senate passed their clean funding bill the next day.
Well there's Jon Boy's response which is what I wanted to say as well, but there's something else in your post.
I seriously doubt the shutdown would have lasted hours. Even if the Senate passes 1,000 appropriation bills reopening the government, they would have to get through the House, and they wouldn't have with the GOP ultimatum that the individual mandate of the ACA be pushed back one year.
It was that ultimatum and Democrat refusal to capitulate (rightly) that caused the government to run out of money and force a shutdown. This mechanism we are talking about now makes it harder to end the shutdown. That's what it actually does.
I can guess that it's designed to make it impossible for Democrats or more moderate Republicans to publicly lay bare the fractures in the GOP that are forming, or publicly create a spectacle of Democratic Congressman voting over and over to end the shutdown. Sorta like the trick the GOP finished using weeks ago, where they voted to repeal the ADA a gazillion times, and called it trying to save America.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except people have been doing whip counts since the DAY this thing began, and it's almost universally agreed that if a bill actually came to the floor to re-open the government, the Dems would have voted as a bloc to approve it, and they probably would have peeled off about 17-25 GOP congressmen as well from the moderate wing, like Peter King (can't believe he passes for moderate these days) who have said from the start that they want to re-open the government and that this entire endeavor is stupid.
Your scenario only works if the GOP actually has a lock step bloc that refuses to join the Dems, but that's never been true during the shutdown. There have always been at least a dozen Republicans willing to break ranks and vote to end the shutdown.
So yes, not allowing the Dems or for that matter any moderate Republican (there's a reason he limited it not only to the majority but to the Speaker and his immediate subordinate) to call the vote is a pretty big deal, because it probably would have ended the shutdown, rather than leading to dozens of ineffective party line votes.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But without it the shutdown would have lasted a matter of hours.
And you don't see any difference between causing a shutdown that would have lasted a matter of hours and ensuring that a shutdown already in effect stayed in effect?
As far as I'm concerned, an eight hour shutdown wouldn't have been a shutdown. National Parks wouldn't have closed. Workers would not have been furloughed. Barricades wouldn't have gone up. It would have been a blip on the radar. It simply wouldn't have been that big a deal. The media would have said they narrowly avoided a shutdown, because a shutdown that only takes place overnight isn't really much of a shutdown at all.
But passing a rule change that allows a shutdown to continue for two or more weeks? That's considerably different.
So yes, as far as I'm concerned, the rule change allowed the shutdown to happen, because had they not changed it, the shutdown likely would have ended by now, and very possibly never would have gone past the wee hours of the morning on Oct. 1.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As far as I'm concerned, an eight hour shutdown wouldn't have been a shutdown. National Parks wouldn't have closed. Workers would not have been furloughed. Barricades wouldn't have gone up. It would have been a blip on the radar. It simply wouldn't have been that big a deal. The media would have said they narrowly avoided a shutdown, because a shutdown that only takes place overnight isn't really much of a shutdown at all.
But passing a rule change that allows a shutdown to continue for two or more weeks? That's considerably different.
You said that causing a shutdown versus prolonging a shutdown was a distinction without a difference, but I think you just clearly articulated the difference.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think perhaps what Lyrhawn is getting at, or part of it, is that at this point-in the present-it's fair to say this procedural change is instrumental to continuing the shutdown, and that it wouldn't have continued without it-and that those who enacted it knew or should have known these things.
Given that-and it sounds like both of you agree, Jon Boy and BlackBlade, how unfair or inaccurate is Lyrhawn being really?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say that Lyrhawn is being unfair, but I do think it's inaccurate to say that this change is the cause of the shutdown. I'm just a little baffled by the "distinction without a difference" argument, because it seems pretty clear to me that there's a difference. But I certainly agree that this change was instrumental in continuing the shutdown and that this change seems to have been implemented specifically for that purpose.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all about faulting the GOP for the shutdown, and even more for keeping the government shutdown. But this change to parliamentary procedure very clearly did not cause the government to shutdown. You can argue it was all part of the GOPs master plan, or that some Democrats knew about this GOP move before the shutdown happened, and decided it was as sign of bad faith at the negotiating table, but that still doesn't make it mechanically responsible for the shutdown.
Which is what Blayne asserted in his link without any nuance. And nuance isn't exactly aplenty in politics these days.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not be a cause of the shutdown, but I think it's fair to say it was a component of a premeditated plan to cause a shutdown and control how long it lasted, further cementing culpability with the Republican party.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It may not be a cause of the shutdown, but I think it's fair to say it was a component of a premeditated plan to cause a shutdown and control how long it lasted, further cementing culpability with the Republican party.
This.
There's a lot of calling the dog a wagon these days in the Republican Party. And I think this is because they realize that the media will give them their share of airtime *no matter* what their messaging is. So they might as well swing for the fences every single time. I think this is core to the reason the Republicans have become so far detached from reality in the past few years especially.
If their narrative says the President caused the shutdown, the talking heads will be too afraid not to give that air. If they say they want to end the shutdown, even as they work against the possibility of a shutdown, again, the talking heads are *too afraid* to call BS on this or simply not to give it air, in the absurd fear that the base who wants to hear this BS will be angry if it isn't said. It's very frustrating- particularly in a case in which the Republicans have done very little except lie their pants off the whole time, and Dems have done very little but be brutally honest.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If their narrative says the President caused the shutdown, the talking heads will be too afraid not to give that air. If they say they want to end the shutdown, even as they work against the possibility of a shutdown, again, the talking heads are *too afraid* to call BS on this or simply not to give it air, in the absurd fear that the base who wants to hear this BS will be angry if it isn't said. It's very frustrating- particularly in a case in which the Republicans have done very little except lie their pants off the whole time, and Dems have done very little but be brutally honest.
quote:false equivalency in the news has been very much, in fact, in the news lately – thanks to reporting on the US government shutdown that characterizes the impasse as the consequence of two stubborn political parties unwilling to compromise on healthcare. For instance, this was the final paragraph of a Washington Post editorial:
quote:Ultimately, the grown-ups in the room will have to do their jobs, which in a democracy with divided government means compromising for the common good. That means Mr Boehner, his counterpart in the Senate, Harry M Reid (D-Nev), minority leaders Sen Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) and Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and the president. Both sides are inordinately concerned with making sure that, if catastrophe comes, the other side takes the political hit. In truth, none of their reputations stands to benefit.
Mutually obdurate pols – it's a fetching narrative, since Republicans and Democrats are undisputedly more polarized than they've been in a century, yielding endless posturing and partisan gridlock. Except, the narrative is wrong. The shutdown is not the result of the divide between Republicans and Democrats on Obamacare: that issue has been legislated, ratified by two presidential elections, affirmed by the US supreme court and more than 40 times unrepealed by Congress.
No, the shutdown is the result of the divide between mainstream, center-right Republicans and Tea Party extremists. The latter are wrapped in suicide belts and perfectly willing to blow the GOP and the economy to kingdom come if they can: a) kill Obamacare (as if); or b) guarantee campaign windfalls from likeminded anti-government crackpots.
This is not gridlock. It is a hostage situation.
Others, however, see things differently. In a recent post calling for Obama's impeachment, headlined "Barack Hussein Obama: The New Leader of al-Qaida", the website Tea Party Nation accused the president of treason. As US Representative Virginia Foxx (Republican, North Carolina) warned the House upon passage of Obamacare in 2009:
quote:I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.
Haha, not kidding. Those quotations are real – and why not? There has never been a shortage of paranoia in politics. What has changed is the press's willingness to give it oxygen.
As an institution, the American media seem to have decided that no superstition, stupidity, error in fact or Big Lie is too superstitious, stupid, wrong or evil to be disqualified from "balancing" an opposing … wadddyacallit? … fact. Because, otherwise, the truth might be cited as evidence of liberal bias.
Thus do the US media aid and abet Swiftboaters, 9/11 "Truthers", creationists and "Birthers"
quote:quote: I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill than we do from any terrorist right now in any country. Haha, not kidding. Those quotations are real – and why not? There has never been a shortage of paranoia in politics. What has changed is the press's willingness to give it oxygen.
Well... my opinion is that the minutia of the ACA is vastly more important to this country than any terrorist group in any country. So in a way I agree. But I doubt the original writer would agree with my reasoning. Maybe we could use this logic to shift money from our various, overpriced efforts to fight terrorism over into paying for our citizen's healthcare. That way instead of the NSA reading my e-mails, I get preventative care. Seems like a win-win to me.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It may not be a cause of the shutdown, but I think it's fair to say it was a component of a premeditated plan to cause a shutdown and control how long it lasted, further cementing culpability with the Republican party.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It may not be a cause of the shutdown, but I think it's fair to say it was a component of a premeditated plan to cause a shutdown and control how long it lasted, further cementing culpability with the Republican party.
Sure, which is why I said, "You can argue it was all part of the GOPs master plan..."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If things are happening about the way I think they are happening, the effort to throw Ted Cruz under the bus has probably already begun in earnest.
I remember another republican that the establishment threw under the bus. He ended up getting elected for two terms, both with landslide victories. Not that I think Cruz has a chance in hell though.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If things are happening about the way I think they are happening, the effort to throw Ted Cruz under the bus has probably already begun in earnest.
I remember another republican that the establishment threw under the bus. He ended up getting elected for two terms, both with landslide victories. Not that I think Cruz has a chance in hell though.
Welcome back! It's been a few days since your last post where your refusal to acknowledge questions answered was answered with the answers to those same questions again, so you're now almost safe to ignore that whole thing entirely, and ask those questions all over again.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If things are happening about the way I think they are happening, the effort to throw Ted Cruz under the bus has probably already begun in earnest.
I remember another republican that the establishment threw under the bus. He ended up getting elected for two terms, both with landslide victories. Not that I think Cruz has a chance in hell though.
Is this like when you thought the Historical Footnote* would win?
*Romney if this isn't clear to non-Daily Show viewers.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
how is that relevant. he's saying that historical parallel notwithstanding, cruz is not going to be making a comeback if the party tosses him to survive the next election
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: how is that relevant. he's saying that historical parallel notwithstanding, cruz is not going to be making a comeback if the party tosses him to survive the next election
If the GOP turns away from him and ignores what he started to make a deal with Obama, Cruz will spend millions for the next two years making himself out to be Republican Jesus, true defender of the faith, sacrificed by Washington politics even as he tried to destroy Obamacare.
He'll crush the primaries and get crushed in the general.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The cynical part of me has been wondering if some Republicans had this in mind. They paint the president into a corner where he has to break the law one way or another, then they impeach him.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They will also attack any other choice Obama makes. If, as some on the right are saying, there's enough revenue to service the debt without raising the debt limit, but overall budget exceeds revenue, and no more borrowing is possible, there will have to be something else that doesn't get funding. And if Obama has any say in that, the GOP will attack him, painting it as one more way that he is pushing his own agenda.
I don't think this is going to work, but I can see how some of the nuts thought it was a perfect trap.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Maybe we could use this logic to shift money from our various, overpriced efforts to fight terrorism over into paying for our citizen's healthcare. That way instead of the NSA reading my e-mails, I get preventative care.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
