| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PPACA was not part of the spending bill. The spending bill is being used as a last attempt to stop the PPACA through unprecedented strategy based on extortion.
And we think things are bad now? Imagine just how dysfunctional the government will become if the extortion is successful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PPACA was not part of the spending bill. The spending bill is being used as a last attempt to stop the PPACA through unprecedented strategy based on extortion.And we think things are bad now? Imagine just how dysfunctional the government will become if the extortion is successful.
How do you think we got here in the first place?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a libertarian, I can't help but be thrilled about anything that wakes people up to the colossal failure that our federal government has become.
If you want government to be more effective, stop voting in people who run on an anti-government platform and are willing to shut the entire thing down in order to get their way.
I don't get this reasoning. "Our government sucks, let's elect people who want it to suck harder! That will fix everything!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the person you are negotiating with doesn't cooperate, that's not extortion. it is failure on your part (and maybe the other person's part) to negotiate.
No. Not it is not. This assumption is a literal logical fallacy, which is a polite way of saying (as my bald headed friend put it) that its a bucket of equine excess.
Sometimes one person is completely to blame. Sometimes someone is being a prat. You have to look at the individual actions to see if you're doing anything wrong. The mere act of disagreement does not itself make you unreasonable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good negotiating would start with trying to find out why you want to kill 50% of school children, then seeing if there is an alternative which will meet your needs and is something I can live with.
We already had the ACA negotiation. Or do you truly believe that holding routine functions of the government hostage to re-hashing ANYTHING SOMEONE DIDN'T LIKE...EVER is sane?
I know! Senate Democrats should just vote 'no' on funding the government until the House agrees to reverse the Bush tax cuts. By your logic, if the house won't negotiate, they're equally to blame! Or maybe the Senate should refuse to vote on anything at all until the House agrees to Medicare for everyone! Brilliant! /s
Speaking as a libertarian, I can't help but be thrilled about anything that wakes people up to the colossal failure that our federal government has become.If you want government to be more effective, stop voting in people who run on an anti-government platform and are willing to shut the entire thing down in order to get their way.
I don't get this reasoning. "Our government sucks, let's elect people who want it to suck harder! That will fix everything!"
Its a result of our winner take all election system
Government will suck no matter who's in charge, but the perception is that it will suck in different ways.
The democrats want high taxes, a nanny state controlling individual actions, and to control speach with regards to racial matters.
The republicans want a world conquering military, promotion of Christianity and nationalism, and to let corporations run the country.
The thing is, no one votes "for congress". You vote for YOUR congress critter, who may be advocating the way you think sucks less. So while you vote for the candidate you think sucks less, so does the other person... voting for the other party in another state. Then both of your people go and get into a tug of war.
The thing is, no one votes "for congress". You vote for YOUR congress critter, who may be advocating the way you think sucks less. So while you vote for the candidate you think sucks less, so does the other person... voting for the other party in another state. Then both of your people go and get into a tug of war.
And if the US system is anything like the UK one, your local candidate will still vote what their party tells them to rather that whatever is in the best interests of their local voters, anyway... So in that case it really doesn't matter who you vote for, as they're all just interested in getting their party into power and/or re-elected far more than they are in actually doing the right thing in running the country properly or in being a representative for their part of the country.
I didn't vote for any of the people currently in office.
That strikes me as problematic. You need to start backing horses with a chance.
So, no, I'm not responsible for voting in people who want it to suck harder.
The guy who refuses to participate in our country's foremost democratic compromise criticizing government for its inability to compromise.
And people wonder how we ended up in this situation.
I believe in fixing the federal government and the first step in fixing it is to shrink it.
Based on what, exactly?
Actual facts say otherwise. Darned facts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the person you are negotiating with doesn't cooperate, that's not extortion. it is failure on your part (and maybe the other person's part) to negotiate.ACA is a component of funding. It cannot be considered totally unrelated to funding.EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES is "related" to funding...see my remark above about the Bush tax cuts.
Extortion, plain and simple. Thankfully, it is almost guaranteed to backfire.
They weren't negotiating on the PPAC. It was enacted 3 years ago and became law. It has to be funded unless it can be repealed. That is the process. What is happening now, to my knowledge, has never happened before. It is a political pathway that bypasses the democratic process. It cannot be allowed to work regardless of what it is about.
|
|
That strikes me as problematic. You need to start backing horses with a chance.That strikes me as problematic. As long as people vote for politicians who "have a chance" because they are backed by the DNC and RNC, our country won't have a chance because the DNC and RNC are killing us.
Based on what, exactly?Actual facts say otherwise. Darned facts.
what actual evidence are you pointing to?
the current failure of federal government came about because our government overreached and got too big. Your represenatives are people who have no experience living like you.
So do you support creating a new legislative mechanism to repeal laws by attaching provisions to funding bills that defund what was democratically agreed upon? Regardless of how you feel about the PPACA - doesn't that strike you as undemocratic and a step in the wrong direction for your big picture goals discussed above? Imagine if it worked. The democrats will use it on the republicans. It would be chaos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that the democrats compromised already by accepting the GOP funding levels and not pushing for pre-sequester levels, or higher, like they want to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I am done.
But don't you get it? If you really, really don't like something, it's A-OK to shut down the government to stop it... and it isn't even your fault!
Or maybe stopping the ACA is a moral imperative for some people. Human trafficking? Really?
I'm not sure which position I find more frightening.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.
Lets come to an agreement, before the next time you post you have to send me 100 dollars on paypal. BigNorseWolf at Gmail dot com.
|
Oh no, a national health care is such a horrid thing. Let's all pay astronomical sums to our doctors. That's genius.
One thing i love about socialism is that health care is cheap. You have a bruto pay and a net pay. Bruto is all the money you earn in a month. Subtract some taxes and health care and there is net. Say maybe 5% of your money goes towards funding your health care. And when you get sick, you stay in hospitals with no additional charges. Also, you don't get to pay a ridiculously high hospital/treatment fees which would actually exceed 5% of your pay. But hey, you get to choose what to do with your money.
Its the same with people who chose to opt out of vaccination and then blame the state when their kids die of something that that vaccine should protect them from.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.
You're not even reading this thread, are you? :P
Lets come to an agreement, before the next time you post you have to send me 100 dollars on paypal. BigNorseWolf at Gmail dot com.
Sweet. I wish I had thought of it. What are you going to do with your $100? You did get your $100, right?
Right?
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running.
No one is denying this fact what we're denying is the logical fallacy behind it. Just because the democrats COULD agree to the republicans demands isn't the same as they SHOULD agree to the republicans demands. It doesn't make it the democrats fault, at all, if the government shuts down.
And there is a failure on your part to reach an agreement.
|
|
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.You're not even reading this thread, are you? :P
Congress already passed the PPACA. It has to be funded until it is repealed. Laws cannot be repealed by refusing to sign funding bills. Additionally, concessions and negotiations were already made 3 years ago to such an extent that Obama is criticized heavily for compromising too much with conservatives. I am sorry but you clearly just do not understand what is going on here.
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.
Senate Bill: Funds the government.
House Bill: Funds the government, makes other -- at best tertiarily related -- demands.Do these two things truly appear equivalent to you?
The same thing could be said of the Republicans. Just because they could have accepted the Democrat budget doesn't mean they should have accepted it.
Its not the democratic budget. Its the compromised budget to start with.,
And wheres my 100 dollars!?!?!?!?
It has to be funded until it is repealed.What administrative law states that? I'd like to read it.
So...checks and balances were intended to be ignored? After all, congress could simply choose not to fund the Supreme Court, no? There goes jurisprudence.
Its not the democratic budget. Its the compromised budget to start with.,
And wheres my 100 dollars!?!?!?!?
No doubt. Where is it, Justin? It's your fault for failing to compromise!
It has to be funded until it is repealed.What administrative law states that? I'd like to read it.
I've got Justin Rocket's back on this (and only this) point: unfunded mandates exist all over Federal law (No Child Left Behind, as merely one example). There's nothing at all that says appropriations have to be made for law enactment. It's a well-rehearsed tactic, even if if it completely circumvents the legislative process.
I've got Justin Rocket's back on this (and only this) point: unfunded mandates exist all over Federal law (No Child Left Behind, as merely one example). There's nothing at all that says appropriations have to be made for law enactment. It's a well-rehearsed tactic, even if if it completely circumvents the legislative process.
Sure seems like it. It also makes me wonder why Congress doesn't just "de-fund" the judiciary. Or, better yet (at least from their point of view), the Whitehouse. How do other branches of government even matter if Congress can just de-fund them out of existence?
But you learn something new every day I guess.
|
|
Congress already passed the PPACA. It has to be funded until it is repealed. Laws cannot be repealed by refusing to sign funding bills. Additionally, concessions and negotiations were already made 3 years ago to such an extent that Obama is criticized heavily for compromising too much with conservatives. I am sorry but you clearly just do not understand what is going on here.I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.You're not even reading this thread, are you? :PThis is completely wrong.
The Anti-Deficiency Act of 1984 allows congress to kill government programs by not funding them.
It also makes it illegal for the Executive branch to continue government programs that have been de-funded.
Yes government programs whose cost exceeds what is available in appropriations or funds. The PPACA is funded through its own tax.
|
|
I've got Justin Rocket's back on this (and only this) point: unfunded mandates exist all over Federal law (No Child Left Behind, as merely one example). There's nothing at all that says appropriations have to be made for law enactment. It's a well-rehearsed tactic, even if if it completely circumvents the legislative process.It has to be funded until it is repealed.What administrative law states that? I'd like to read it.
Can you give an example of one that was defunded before it was implemented and failed?
Sorry to re-post this, but I'd really like an answer and I think it got buried.
Senate Bill: Funds the government.
House Bill: Funds the government, adds other stuff.
Justin, do these two things truly appear equivalent to you?
I've got Justin Rocket's back on this (and only this) point: unfunded mandates exist all over Federal law (No Child Left Behind, as merely one example). There's nothing at all that says appropriations have to be made for law enactment. It's a well-rehearsed tactic, even if if it completely circumvents the legislative process.Sure seems like it. It also makes me wonder why Congress doesn't just "de-fund" the judiciary. Or, better yet (at least from their point of view), the Whitehouse. How do other branches of government even matter if Congress can just de-fund them out of existence?
But you learn something new every day I guess.
Thats why congress, the president, and the courts are guaranteed funding via the constitution and not an appropriations law (and why they're still getting checks through all this). During colonial times England decided that American Judges would be paid by the crown- with the not so subtle implication that if they didn't get the rulings they wanted the pay would be cut off. Having it as part of the constitution makes that much, MUCH harder.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Congress can't even vote to defund itself... changes in salary take place during the next congress thanks to the 27th ammendment.
Thats why congress, the president, and the courts are guaranteed funding via the constitution and not an appropriations law (and why they're still getting checks through all this). During colonial times England decided that American Judges would be paid by the crown- with the not so subtle implication that if they didn't get the rulings they wanted the pay would be cut off. Having it as part of the constitution makes that much, MUCH harder.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Congress can't even vote to defund itself... changes in salary take place during the next congress thanks to the 27th ammendment.
Ah, thanks for the explanation. But I still don't see how this would prevent Congress from completely neutering the Executive Branch. While the branch itself might be protected, surely anything it attempts to do will cost money (see: Closing Guantanamo).
What's next, threatening to defund Obama's Secret Service detail?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps an analogy would help you see how insane this is.
Husband: Before I sign off on us getting a joint checking account, you need to agree to stop using our car. If you...
what Obamacare is trying to do is a bit more than drive a car. A better analogy would be
Husband: Before I sign off on us getting a joint checking account, you need to agree to stop arbitraging human trafficking
Yes, expanded healthcare coverage is just as unreasonable as taking advantage of human trafficking.
Personally, the huge detrimental impact the ACA will have on the poor makes me feel a moral imperative to stop the ACA.
Any detrimental impact it has on poor people (and even then, minor) is the direct result of a handful of Republican governors refusing to take part in the expanded Medicaid coverage.
Yes, expanded healthcare coverage is just as unreasonable as taking advantage of human trafficking.
Is that Sarcasm? It seems like it might be sarcasm. Sorry, I just can't tell. :)
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.You're not even reading this thread, are you? :P
The difference is the Republican party already lost that fight. 38 times. Plus a Supreme Court battle and a national election. They lost.
This is equivalent to the school yard bully losing a game of kickball and threatening to pop the class's ball unless you change the score so they're the winner.
Wow... The blocking of supply happened once in Australian history. Constitutionally if a governments supply is blocked (by the Senate (upper house)) it is dismissed and elections are called.... There is also the problem that there is a conflicting part of the constitution - A government may govern as long as it has the support of the lower house (House of Representatives)) .
In 1975 the Conservatives (who controlled the Senate) blocked Supply to the Labor party who controlled the House of Reps... Deadlock ensued until the Queens Representative the Governor General dismissed the Labor Prime-minister and new elections were called.