Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:00 am

3) You seem to think there's something inherently wrong with trying to block a hideously bad and fiscally ruinous program that the public doesn't want (apparently because without Obamacare "healthcare" will cease to exist, or something).


Nothing wrong at all with trying. And trying again. And again. And then again.

But, you've tried and FAILED. Because, you see, you really DON'T have the mandate you think you have. If you had that popular mandate, you'd have the Senate AND the White House too. You don't. Your caucus holds a majority in one house of Congress, and not even all of THEM favor the shut down. If Speaker Boehner held a vote today on the bill that the Senate sent back to him, the one in which the funding for "Obamacare" was restored, there are enough Republican votes in support to pass that bill. This is why Boehner won't allow that bill to be voted on.

So you don't even have a majority in the house you control.

Your options are exhausted, and this continuing shutdown is the only tool you have, but for some reason, you continue to deny that this is your strategy. I like what Stewart said the other night (paraphrasing here), "Look, if you think that Obamacare is so terrible that it's worth shutting down the government over, great, OWN IT. Don't fart and then point at the dog". .
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:03 am

This just in:


By Robert Schroeder WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - House Republicans have offered the White House a debt-ceiling increase and an end to the 11-day-old government shutdown, the Associated Press reported. Republicans want spending cuts in exchange, the AP said. Earlier Friday, Politico reported that House Republicans are waiting for a response from the White House for a proposal about six weeks of budget talks.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-offer-deal-on-debt-shutdown-report-2013-10-11?siteid=yhoof2

Now, let's see if they will also propose WHAT spending cuts they'd like to see. Last time, they seemed to be very vague on where the cuts should happen, demanding that President Obama tell them what cuts he would allow. Seems pretty backward to me, if you're the guy asking for cuts, you should be saying what programs you want cut!
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby GlassHouse » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:45 am

the GOP(T) version of Epic Movie

The Return of the Straight Talker

"Let's have a little straight talk, Martha," McCain said. "[The administration] wouldn't have had the opportunity to handle it that way if we had not shut down the government on a fool's errand that we were not going to accomplish. The whole premise of shutting down the government was the repeal of Obamacare. I fought against Obamacare harder than any of the people who wanted to shut down the government."


with supporting cast from; the GOP Establishment

From county chairmen to national party luminaries, veteran Republicans across the country are accusing tea party lawmakers of staining the GOP with their refusal to bend in the budget impasse in Washington. The Republican establishment also is signaling a willingness to strike back at the tea party in next fall’s elections.

“It’s time for someone to act like a grown-up in this process,” former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu argues, faulting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and tea party Republicans in the House as much as President Barack Obama for taking an uncompromising stance.

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is just as pointed, saying this about the tea party-fueled refusal to support spending measures that include money for Obama’s health care law: “It never had a chance.”
The anger emanating from Republicans like Sununu and Barbour comes just three years after the GOP embraced the insurgent political group and rode its wave of new energy to return to power in the House.

Now, they’re lashing out with polls showing Republicans bearing most of the blame for the federal shutdown, which entered its 11th day Friday. In some places, they’re laying the groundwork to take action against the tea party in the 2014 congressional elections…



and Not Quite A Mandate

After viewing new polls, House GOP not only planning on reopening government but considering opening second government for good measure.



Just 24 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of the Republican party, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday.

The survey reflects a record low in approval for the GOP for NBC/WSJ poll, which dates back to 1989.

The poll also found an increase in support for the Affordable Care Act with 38 percent of respondents approving of the law -- up from 31 percent in the same poll last month.

The GOP took a big hit over the shutdown. Americans blame Republicans over Obama for the shutdown by a 53-31 margin. Seventy percent said that Republicans were placing politics ahead of the country's best interest. Fifty-one percent said that Obama is putting his agenda above the country.

A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 28 percent of Americans view Republicans favorably, also an all-time low for that poll.

The NBC/WSJ poll surveyed 800 people Oct. 7-9 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent.



the reviews are in
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:46 am

An excellent piece on the willful delusion of some Republicans. Having created a counterfactual universe in which they rarely have to hear anything that Fox News doesn't want them to hear, Tea Partiers and their allies have lost touch with reality, and continue to hold forth with their "opinions" which are based on "facts" which are simply, objectively, untrue. The question is, do people like Cruz really believe what they are saying, or are they hucksters, counting on their audience to faithfully and uncritically accept everything they are told?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ted-cruz-living-another-planet-172534587.html

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the public hates the shutdown, Americans are 20 points more likely to blame Republicans for the shutdown than Obama, the Republican Party is scoring its worst poll numbers on record, Cruz's colleagues in the House and Senate hate him, and they're preparing to cave to the president by reopening the government and funding Obamacare.

Cruz is betting that his supporters are too stupid to notice that his strategy is failing and was doomed to fail. He's probably right.

Lots of people thought that when Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election after months of conservatives proclaiming that the polls were "skewed" and he was on course to win, the party's base might start to evaluate whether it misunderstood the world around it.

Remarkably, conservative delusion about facts on the ground is more intense than ever. The appetite for stories like the one Cruz is telling is unending, impervious to facts and sustainable no matter how far the Republican Party's poll numbers fall.

When constituencies become aggrieved minorities, seeing themselves as under attack by the establishment, they are vulnerable to hucksters like Cruz, because they disregard outside warnings and evidence that they are being had.

Usually, you see this on a smaller scale: Ohio's economically depressed Mahoning Valley sending Jim Traficant (D) to Congress for two decades even though he was obviously a corrupt politician with a mental disorder; New Orleans re-electing Bill Jefferson (D) to Congress after the FBI raided his home and found $90,000 in cash in his freezer, because maybe there was a perfectly good explanation for how it got there.

What's unprecedented about Cruz and similar Tea Party Republicans who make up about a third of the House Republican conference is that the aggrieved localized minority has gone national. Republicans once thought Fox News and the conservative media bubble were strategic advantages that allowed them to coordinate messages and organize voters; instead, they have allowed Republican voters to remain unaware that their favorite politicians are lying to them and alienating the median voter.

Losing one election wasn't nearly enough to wake Republican voters up to this problem. Ted Cruz isn't alone on his strange planet; much of the Republican Party is right there with him. And that's likely to be true for a long time.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby GlassHouse » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:12 pm

Coincidentally, I just saw this posted by someone on facebook

from Business Insider: STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All
those who watched no news—answering questions by guessing or relying on existing knowledge—fared much better than those who watched the most popular 24-hour cable news network (i.e. Fox News).
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby The Heretic » Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:22 pm

portia wrote:I am sorry for people in other states who are having problems with the website. CA is not having those problems. Possibly because there were no political and posturing issues, here.

Meantime, Californians were still running into computer problems and long hold times during the second day of enrollment under the federal healthcare law.

Those glitches have prompted Covered California to shut down its online enrollment system twice.

First, the state took it down from 9 p.m. Tuesday until 7 a.m. Wednesday to make technical fixes. Then Covered California took enrollment offline for two hours Wednesday morning because information on health plans wasn't loading properly, according to the state.

These problems could frustrate consumers and hamper enrollment efforts. California is trying to sign up more than 2 million people through next year, the most of any state.

Some consumers said they were able to create an account on the state's website at www.coveredca.com, but the system crashed after that.

People calling for information continued to face wait times of 30 minutes or more. Some call-center representatives at the exchange told people they were having trouble accessing the state system themselves, further slowing down the enrollment process.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l ... 8713.story
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:09 pm

Try some information from THIS week.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:27 am

The Heretic wrote:
portia wrote:I am sorry for people in other states who are having problems with the website. CA is not having those problems. Possibly because there were no political and posturing issues, here.

Meantime, Californians were still running into computer problems and long hold times during the second day of enrollment under the federal healthcare law.

Those glitches have prompted Covered California to shut down its online enrollment system twice.

First, the state took it down from 9 p.m. Tuesday until 7 a.m. Wednesday to make technical fixes. Then Covered California took enrollment offline for two hours Wednesday morning because information on health plans wasn't loading properly, according to the state.

These problems could frustrate consumers and hamper enrollment efforts. California is trying to sign up more than 2 million people through next year, the most of any state.

Some consumers said they were able to create an account on the state's website at http://www.coveredca.com, but the system crashed after that.

People calling for information continued to face wait times of 30 minutes or more. Some call-center representatives at the exchange told people they were having trouble accessing the state system themselves, further slowing down the enrollment process.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l ... 8713.story



You're right, the fact that some of these new online exchanges are having some glitches and growing pains as they are rolled out for the first time is a totally valid reason to scrap the entire idea.

You know what also has computer problems sometimes? The Stock Market:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/business/economy/07trade.html?_r=0

http://www.news.com.au/business/markets/tech-glitch-causes-wild-us-stock-swings/story-e6frfm30-1226441118376

There are lots of similar stories easily searched. Guess we better scrap Capitalism. .
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby solicitr » Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:42 am

Glasshouse has actually stumbled on a point: Far too much of the GOP establishment has been co-opted by the Beltway mentality and are hardly more than Democrat-lite. (Naturally, McCain is the MSM's go-to guy as to hold up as a "reasonable" Republican, meaning of course a total RINO). The 'go-along-to-get-along' thing has become almost as bad as the horrible old days of Bob Michel... or even Chicago/Cook County Republicans, who long ago agreed to become junior partners in the Democrats' graft racket as long as they got a small cut of the boodle.

You might be interested in Nate Silver's assessment that come election time a year from now this whole episode will be hardly remembered by the voters, and modest poll fluctuations today will mean nothing then (although Obama's approval dropping to 38% was carefully avoided by the same MSM that made it a top headline when Bush hit the same number). A year is an eternity in politics.

What the public *will* remember is that it was the Republicans, and especially the libertarian/small government wing of the GOP, which fought hard to protect them from the Obamacare fiasco which in 12 months they will hate like the plague.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby ILvEowyn » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:12 pm

solicitr wrote:Glasshouse has actually stumbled on a point: Far too much of the GOP establishment has been co-opted by the Beltway mentality and are hardly more than Democrat-lite. (Naturally, McCain is the MSM's go-to guy as to hold up as a "reasonable" Republican, meaning of course a total RINO). The 'go-along-to-get-along' thing has become almost as bad as the horrible old days of Bob Michel... or even Chicago/Cook County Republicans, who long ago agreed to become junior partners in the Democrats' graft racket as long as they got a small cut of the boodle.

You might be interested in Nate Silver's assessment that come election time a year from now this whole episode will be hardly remembered by the voters, and modest poll fluctuations today will mean nothing then (although Obama's approval dropping to 38% was carefully avoided by the same MSM that made it a top headline when Bush hit the same number). A year is an eternity in politics.

What the public *will* remember is that it was the Republicans, and especially the libertarian/small government wing of the GOP, which fought hard to protect them from the Obamacare fiasco which in 12 months they will hate like the plague.


That's if people hate it like the plague, but I think only people that are predisposed to hate Obama like the plague (and never would have voted for him anyway) will object it that much. You mention Obama's approval rating (which poll are you referring to by the way, because I haven't seen any with a number that low?), but conveniently ignore the fact that Congress's approval rating has dropped far more, and that the GOP's approval rating has dropped significantly more than the Democrats. Though to be sure, no one is making out well in this situation.

Your stance against moderation in the GOP demonstrates why, imo, the GOP bears a lot of blame for this dragging on as long as it has.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby ILvEowyn » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:30 pm

Obama approve/disapprove 43/51(Gallup)

Obama approve/disapprove 51/47 (Rasmussen)

And those were the two pollsters who were consistently the least favorable to the President in 2012.

And while we're at it.

Shutdown more toxic to voters than Obamacare

And that's from Resurgent Republic, a conservative outlet with no love for Obamacare.

Unfortunately in the context of a government shutdown, Obamacare is the lesser of two evils.

Unlike previous trends, Independents look more like Democrats than Republicans when it comes to partially shutting down the government in order to right the wrongs of Obamacare. Three-quarters of Independents join 86 percent of Democrats in disapproving of this action, according to a CBS News survey. More noteworthy, Republicans are split: 48 percent approval to 49 percent disapproval.

By 59 to 38 percent, even those who oppose Obamacare believe a partial government shutdown is not the way to go. A government shutdown divides Republicans and flips the anti-Obamacare coalition, which is why the shutdown stopped revolving around the health care law several days ago.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:34 am

Not only have Republicans deliberately shut down the Government, and placed our nation at risk of Default, they have changed the rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit any member OTHER than Senior Republicans from introducing a motion or amendment to get things going again.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) exposes how the House Republicans rigged the rules so that only Speaker John Boehner (R) or his designee can reopen the government, when normally ANY member of Congress should be able to call that vote.

He asks from the floor for a clarification on House Rule XXII Clause 4, which states: “When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.”

He is then told by the Speaker Pro Tempore that the rule had been “altered by the House.” Pushing further, he is told that the House adopted House Resolution 368, passed on October 1st. The resolution reads that “any motion pursuant to Clause 4 of Rule XXII relating to the House Joint Resolution may be offered ONLY BY THE MAJORITY LEADER OR HIS DESIGNEE.”

Rep. Van Hollen then clarifies,


“So, Mr. Speaker, just so I understand… H. Res 368 CHANGED THE STANDING RULES OF THE HOUSE TO TAKE AWAY FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE THE PRIVLIGE OF CALLING UP THE SENATE BILL TO IMMEDIATELY REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT?”

He is told that he is correct.


http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/10/house-gop-rig-rules-government-shut-down-explosive-video/


So they've closed everything down, and rigged the rules to KEEP it closed.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-resolution/368/text

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Res. 368 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 368

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 1 (legislative day, September 30), 2013.
Resolved, That the House hereby (1) takes from the Speaker's table the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014,
and for other purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment
thereto, (2) insists on its amendment, and (3) requests a conference with the
Senate thereon.
Sec. 2. Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House
Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.
Attest:

Clerk



So I think we can put to rest the talk about how anyone OTHER than the GOP is using the shutdown and threat of default to advance their agenda.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:48 am

Obamacare is not the lesser of two evils. It is a program that the whole Congress voted for, was signed into law and upheld by the supreme court.
If it has serious flaws, they will be apparent within a few months. All kinds of fixes are possible, depending on who gets a majority in Congress. Imaginary problems before it takes effect are just so much political fantasy. They should be wiped from memory as soon as they are spoken.

I fully expect that in 10 or maybe 15 years, it will become another "third rail" of the federal government that no-one will want to touch. Our children will wonder what the hubub was about.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:28 am

portia wrote:
I fully expect that in 10 or maybe 15 years, it will become another "third rail" of the federal government that no-one will want to touch. Our children will wonder what the hubub was about.



Which is why they are so desperate to shut it down now, because they KNOW that once the law goes into action and begins to demonstrate its benefits, even when balanced against its flaws, most people will come to appreciate the value it has in their lives, and they will want to keep it. Sen Cruz pretty much said the same thing in his non-filibuster speech, though he referred to this as "being addicted to the sugar". Still, as much as he was sneering it the law, he was still admitting that people would LIKE it, and that's what the GOP is afraid of. More immediately, they should be terrified that the law will go into affect, and Freedom will NOT be destroyed, as they have been warning us constantly, and so their single-minded fearmongering over the last several years will be exposed as a lot of hogwash.

They totally missed the boat on this whole thing. They should have been trying to work WITH the President on this all along, but they were too intent on labeling him a Communist, they talked themselves into a corner with absolutely no way out, no path to victory, and no way to make a meaningful contribution. What in incredibly waste.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby GlassHouse » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:20 am

Minardil wrote:Not only have Republicans deliberately shut down the Government, and placed our nation at risk of Default, they have changed the rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit any member OTHER than Senior Republicans from introducing a motion or amendment to get things going again.

[snip]

Yesterday the media started making all sorts of happy noises about Reid and McConnell negotiating in the Senate, but I couldn’t understand why. There’s never been very much reason to believe the extremists in the House would agree to anything and there still isn’t. The most interesting thing about the latest news is the way it appears that Ted Cruz has chosen to not oppose the Senate deal outright, by blocking it on the Senate floor (though he might still) but instead has spent the overnight pumping up the wackos to do the dirty work in the House. He’s happy to destroy the world economy, but being on videotape doing it would be bad for his Presidential campaign.

I’m afraid the notion of the United States as the rock-solid guarantor of the world’s financial system is joining the vanished truths of my youth. The real damage won’t just be a market dive. Long term, the biggest disaster for the US. would be that US Treasury bonds would no longer be the cornerstone of the global economy. But the House TP'ers are putting us in dander of that happening, anyway. Oh well. I guess maybe a decade or two of worldwide economic collapse and struggling recovery might at least slow down the acceleration of climate change. Sigh.

I also think this argues for the wisdom of the President citing the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling himself. If the world sees that the U.S. debt really isn’t subject to the whims of congressional extremists, maybe some of the damage can be undone.

Mint that “Trillion Dollar Coin,” Mr. President!
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:58 am

I also think this argues for the wisdom of the President citing the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling himself


I don't think the President can raise the debt ceiling on his own, since that is a matter of statute, but I think he could issue an Executive Order to the Treasury department to issue bonds to pay the bills beyond the Debt Ceiling limit. So, ignore it, rather than change it.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby ILvEowyn » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:08 pm

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


I take the 'authorized by law' language to mean that the President can't raise the debt ceiling by executive action in the way Congress can by legislative action, but he could perhaps use any other powers given to him by law to pay the national debt.

Then there's this:

Reid 'blindsided' by House proposal

House Republicans were caught in a state of flux on Tuesday as a group of senators worked to craft a bipartisan proposal to end the federal government shutdown and avert a default on the national debt.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reacted sharply to a newly circulated House GOP measure, saying, "we felt blindsided by the news from the House." Reid called it a "blatant attack on bipartisanship," which he vowed "can't pass the Senate and won't pass the Senate."


"There are a lot of opinions about what direction to go," House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio told reporters at the Capitol after an unusually long meeting with fellow Republicans. "There have been no decisions about what exactly we will do."

The speaker's words were somewhat stunning given the manner in which Republican aides circulated the details of a GOP proposal to tackle the shutdown and debt limit during the meeting, suggesting the House would move forward on the alternative as soon as Tuesday. The top Senate Democrat said he was "blindsided" by the developments.

Democrats were quick to seize on the theatrics, accusing Republicans of "sabotaging a good faith, bi-partisan effort," in the words of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

According to Republican sources, the House bill had called for extending government spending through Jan. 15 and the debt limit until Feb. 7 -- about the same length of time as the Senate's proposal. The House bill would also delay the medical device tax in "Obamacare" for two years and strip members of Congress (not staffers) of subsidies to purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act's exchanges, among other provisions -- like stripping the Treasury Department of the ability to use "extraordinary measures" to avert default before future debt limit deadlines.
(emphasis mine)

So the House GOP even appears to recognize that the President has some power to deal with the debt limit beyond what Congress does, and yet bizarrely wanted to take that away from him.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby solicitr » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:54 pm

I do find the inversion of reality here startling.

It is not the House GOP which has shut down the government. It is Reid's Senate, backed by Obama.

The House has appropriated every dime required to keep every agency and program of the Federal government operating, save Obamacare. It is the Senate which has refused to accept the money. Got that? The money is right there on the table, and Reid, backed by the WH, has refused to pick it up. It is THEY who are saying "If we can't have Obamacare funding, than nobody gets anything!" Who are the spoiled children here? Who are the "hostage-takers?"

This would be the same Senate which has not only failed to pass a budget for five years (as required by law), but has also refused to pass nearly every appropriations bill passed by the House, preferring instead to kick everything down the road into Massive Pork-Laden Omnibus Bills which are forced through (or not) at the cusp of the fiscal year, precipitating the recurring obscenity of Continuing Resolutions.

--------------------

Portia: The "third rail" phrase of course derives from Social Security- another fiasco of a program which, as you say, it is now impossible to rid ourselves of, and, yes, once a Federal entitlement gets going it's as impossible to dislodge as a limpet. Every soldier knows, you don't holds off an attack so as to allow the enemy to entrench himself.

And, no, it's not "impossible" to predict the looming disaster. It has been condemned as a fiscal black hole by everyone who has examined the numbers from the CBO to its own Senate sponsor. It is entirely reasonable to take away a drunk friend's car keys, and equally reasonable to discourage a friend's proposed retirement plan based on lottery tickets or Beanie Babies.


The House has 435 people. The Senate has 100; The President signs legislation into effect. Some legislation goes to the Supreme Court. This did and was upheld.
(and similar)

In other words, the argument from force majeure. You are going to do this to the people simply because you can. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated. (Incidentally, the SCOTUS decision is irrelevant, why do you lot continue to bring it up?)

-----------------------
Minardil:
If the world sees that the U.S. debt really isn’t subject to the whims of congressional extremists, maybe some of the damage can be undone.
The President has NO SUCH POWER=- it's a crackpot notion cobbled together by whackjobs who want Obama to be a King. And I love your use of the term "extremists" to refer to those who are opposed to lunacy.

once the law goes into action and begins to demonstrate its benefits, even when balanced against its flaws, most people will come to appreciate the value it has in their lives, and they will want to keep it. Sen Cruz pretty much said the same thing in his non-filibuster speech, though he referred to this as "being addicted to the sugar".


Say rather, "be addicted to the heroin." "Just try it, you'll keep coming back for more" is the sales pitch of streetcorner 'entrepreneurial pharmacists.' Obamacare, a program so great that its own backers the unions are demanding to be exempted from it; Obamacare, a program so wonderful people have to be coerced into it under threat of fines.

-------------------
Because, you see, you really DON'T have the mandate you think you have. If you had that popular mandate, you'd have the Senate AND the White House too. You don't.


Don't be obtuse. Politicians, and especially Presidents, are rarely elected or re-elected on a single issue. If there was any election which was a 'referendum' on Obamacare, it was that of 2010- and you know how that turned out.




Seriously, liberals: WHY are you so bound and determined to inflict this on us? Why the heck can't you just leave people alone? Why are the Democrats, with your support, willing to shut down the government over a program which has never once enjoyed popular support? As it stands, 2/3 of Federal spending goes to entitlements (which are on auto-pilot, immune to the appropriations process), and at present trends within ten years it will be 3/4- even without Obamacare: truly the Blob That Ate The Budget.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby solicitr » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:03 pm

Minardil earlier posted a link to an op-ed which conveys the expected triumphalism of an Obama partisan: "Don't 'ee like it, Sam? But you always was soft. We've work to do in the Shire now. This country wants waking up and setting to rights, and Sharkey's going to do it and do it hard."

Here's a different take: Assessing the Government Shutdown: The Long View

A year is an eternity in politics, much less three, at least for headline hooplah: but the long term trend ought to be very worrying for Statists and the Party of Big Government. The Shire-folk are beginning to tire of Lotho Pimple and Sharkey's ruffians.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:15 pm

solicitr wrote:Seriously, liberals: WHY are you so bound and determined to inflict this on us? Why the heck can't you just leave people alone? Why are the Democrats, with your support, willing to shut down the government over a program which has never once enjoyed popular support? As it stands, 2/3 of Federal spending goes to entitlements (which are on auto-pilot, immune to the appropriations process), and at present trends within ten years it will be 3/4- even without Obamacare: truly the Blob That Ate The Budget.

Why were the Liberals so determined to inflict Social Security on people? Didn't the elderly have children, couldn't they eat dog food? Why were they so determined to inflict Medicare on people?

Because someone saw a problem, that people who didn't want to get health insurance were nevertheless inflicting the costs of their injuries and illnesses on the rest of us (this was not a big revelation; it had been seen and commented on for a long time). The costs were somewhat hidden, but not completely and there were people who wanted to make everyone pay their own way
, not cast the costs of their misfortunes on the rest of us. Maybe improve health care along the way.
God forbid that young, healthy people should have to pay their own way, instead of casting ER costs, VD costs, and whatever else they might get on everyone else. Requiring them to get insurance is one way to deal with the problem; there are others.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby ILvEowyn » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:31 pm

It is not the House GOP which has shut down the government. It is Reid's Senate, backed by Obama.


The Democrats have stated repeatedly their desire to reopen the government without conditions. The GOP House has not done so. It's on the GOP.

See I can put things in bold too.

It is the Senate which has refused to accept the money. Got that?


The Senate has voted to appropriate every dollar of the federal government. It's the House that insists on tacking Obamacare onto it. Got that?

GOP push for default

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York said Cruz was “carrying out a fraud with the people” while Sen. John McCain said, “Cruz can do whatever he wants to with the rules of the Senate….I can tell you, in the United States Senate we will not repeal or defund Obamacare, and to think we can, is not rational.”

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, who’s drawn fire from the more conservative factions in the GOP, was blatant in his criticism, tweeting “I didn’t go to Harvard or Princeton, but I can count – the defunding box canyon is a tactic that will fail and weaken our position.”


It isn't even the Republican party in general, but a delusional faction of it that is holding the country hostage.

Krauthammer criticizes GOP push for shutdown

So there you have Charles Krauthammer, not exactly a fan of Obama, putting the blame on the GOP for pushing for a shutdown.
Last edited by ILvEowyn on Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby ILvEowyn » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:42 pm

*sigh* double post; could the mods delete this one please?
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:38 am

Don't be obtuse. Politicians, and especially Presidents, are rarely elected or re-elected on a single issue. If there was any election which was a 'referendum' on Obamacare, it was that of 2010- and you know how that turned out.


Really, 2010 was a referendum on Obamacare, which hadn't even gone into effect yet, and had nothing to do with dissatisfaction at the continuing sluggish economy at the time?

Well, we'll see.

Meanwhile, what has your shut down won for you? And let's be clear, it was Republicans who used the shut down to try to get what they wanted. Even REPUBLICANS are acknowledging that this was their tactic all along. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), for example was on the radio this morning, talking about how this was Sen. Cruz's plan from the start, and how he (Chambliss) tried to talk Cruz out of it, pointing out that it would never work Cruz would never get what he wanted. This idea that President Obama masterminded the shut down to keep a program that was already law is just silly, but it the fact that Tea Baggers are clinging to this fantasy shows how entirely out of touch with reality they are. Look, it was the Tea Bag plan to use the threat of shut down and default to force the Senate and the White House to capitulate to Republican demands to defund Obamacare. Republican insiders, who were involved in these discussions, are acknowledging it publically. You can continue to insist that it was Obama who did it all, but then if that is true, if Obama really planned this entire shut down by maneuvering the Tea Baggers into proposing legislation that would NEVER pass the Senate, and if he tricked them into digging in their heels and refusing to negotiate, and if he somehow hypnotized them into melting down yesterday so that they couldn't even decide what their latest demands would be before they agreed to pass a new CR, and if he did this all in such a way as to cause Republican approval numbers to collapse into the mid 20% range, and have Republicans sniping at each other, calling each other "crazy', then you might as well pack it in and go home now because that obviously means Obama is some kind of mad Genius, and your boys Boehner and Cruz are just his puppets.

And meanwhile, back in reality, after all this posturing and the shut down and the threat of default, WHAT are the Tea Baggers demanding NOW? That the new CR strip Members of Congress and the President of their employer contributions to buy insurance on the exchanges. Well done, you've dragged the country through all of this for THAT. You know, I never do this, but I think this warrants it: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:42 am

This is an print article, in which Sen. Chambliss expresses similar views to the ones I attributed to him in my earlier post. I do not have a link to the interview I heard in the car on the way in this morning:

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/oct/14/saxby-chambliss-blames-defund-obamacare-movement-b/

He does not blame Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for that. No, Chambliss said the blame for the bad spot Republicans are in lies with the arch-conservatives in the party who pushed defunding the new health care law as part of a deal to keep the government open. He did not name names, but Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has managed to anger many in his own caucus over the issue.

The government shut down Oct. 1 when Democrats refused any concessions related to the law, and now the debt ceiling and "continuing resolution" fights have merged and Republicans are taking a beating in the polls. Said Chambliss:


"The president’s made it pretty plain that [Obamacare is] non-negotiable. And what are you going to get that’s of any substance at this point? In my opinion, that was not a very good strategy to start with and folks got backed into a corner on that – 'By God, it’s got to be this!' – and now I think folks are starting to realize, well, that wasn’t a very strong position to be in, because we didn’t have leverage on that. We had leverage on the debt ceiling, but we’re fast losing that."

Chambliss' position matches that of delegation mate Johnny Isakson, who called the shutdown "a dumb idea." It also squares with the original position of House Speaker John Boehner, one of Chambliss' closest friends, who wanted to extend government spending without too much fuss and then seek a deficit-reducing deal attached to a debt-ceiling increase.

I asked Chambliss if a Senate deal puts Boehner in a jam with little time to go until Thursday's debt ceiling deadline. His reply:


"Well, he’s in no more of a jam today than he was last Friday when they said, 'Have at it, Senate.' You know, he hasn’t been able to get anything passed on his side, basically. We know what he sent over. But basically he’s got some hard-liners that are making it very difficult to get the government back open again and much less the debt ceiling. But John’s goal, I know, has been to put some separation between the CR and the debt ceiling, and let’s get some agreement on the CR that gets the government reopened, and let’s have a fight on the debt ceiling."

The "hard-liners," needless to say, include some of those Georgians competing to take Chambliss' spot in the Senate.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:12 am

As I have mentioned before, I have been writing a daily letter to my House Member--one of the 80 who signed the letter suggesting this nonsense. Today, I wrote what may be be the strongest letter yet, asking, in caps, whether the US House of Representatives or Al-Qaeda has done more damage to the US?
That is about all I can do, right now, but I know that the election is next year, and I can do a lot more, then.
If you do not like this situation, tell your representative about it, and urge him/her to speak out.

It will be very difficult, with this history, for anyone who thinks that there should be changes to Obamacare in the future to make the case. Actually, I think that it probably will not take 10 or 15 years to become a "third rail;" people will avoid suggesting any changes, because of this mess.

Well, we will see what else is cut from the budget, but you can bet that what will NOT be cut is anythng supporting Obamacare.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:39 am

More proof of just how delusional the Right has become arrives in this article from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, in which it is "revealed" that this entire crisis was cooked up by Mr. Obama as a plot to make Republicans "look bad" so that Democrats could re-take control of Congress:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/15/obama-adviser-orchestrated-shutdown-showdown-author/

Klein, who is conducting a research for a new Obama tome scheduled for next spring, called Jarrett the “architect” of Obama’s take-no- prisoners approach when it comes to his signature domestic policy initiative.

It was Jarrett who advised Obama that voters would mostly blame Republicans if the federal government ground to a halt, providing a golden opportunity to swing back control of the House to Democrats in the 2014 mid-term elections, according to Klein.

A Democratic House would give Obama an opportunity to pass immigration and other legislation blocked by the current Republican majority.

“It was during one of those nightly sessions that Jarrett devised the no-negotiating strategy that Obama has employed in his fight with the GOP over the government shutdown,” Klein said, citing sources within the administration.

“Valerie came up with the concept late at night, after the kids and grandma and were gone.”

“She convinced the president that a government shutdown and default offered a great opportunity to demonize the Republicans and help the Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2014 .



So rather than admit that their gambit was a disastrous failure, Republicans and their apologists are claiming that this was all Obama's plan.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:06 am

solicitr wrote:Minardil earlier posted a link to an op-ed which conveys the expected triumphalism of an Obama partisan: "Don't 'ee like it, Sam? But you always was soft. We've work to do in the Shire now. This country wants waking up and setting to rights, and Sharkey's going to do it and do it hard."

Here's a different take: Assessing the Government Shutdown: The Long View

A year is an eternity in politics, much less three, at least for headline hooplah: but the long term trend ought to be very worrying for Statists and the Party of Big Government. The Shire-folk are beginning to tire of Lotho Pimple and Sharkey's ruffians.


That was an interesting article with some fascinating data on trends regarding how the public sees the government role in their lives, etc, but in order to spin that as being good news (long term) for the Republicans, you have to make two very large assumptions, both of which are false to varying degrees:

First: You have to assume that the bogeyman of the "Big Government Democrat" - the one that elderly Tea Baggers sit around telling scary stories about between cashing their Social Security Checks and worrying that he’ll get his government hands on their Medicare - actually exists. He doesn't. This is a ludicrous straw man stereotype and would be instantly recognizable as such to any Republican who bothered to really talk to a Democrat, rather than just do what you guys have been doing lately, which is stick your fingers in your ears and scream "SOCIALISM!" at the top of your lungs.

Second: You have to assume that those people who answered that they "mistrust government" all mistrust government in a way that benefits Republicans, which is to say, they are afraid that Obamacare is going to install an RFID chip in their heads for mind control purposes, and they are terrified that Big Government will come along and put its hands on their Medicare (see above), and they want to make sure that poor oppressed job creators can avoid paying any taxes so they can keep sending their money overseas and creating jobs in Malaysia. While many respondents no doubt DO fall into that category, there are lots of people who distrust government because of the very real intrusions that Social Conservatives have made into their lives, or because they see the terrible mess that Republicans seem to have made out of Government, something I can only assume they have done on purpose to help prove their mantra that “Government is the Problem”. These respondents would have no incentive to vote Republican at all.

But really, what most people want is government that works efficiently, is their when they need it, and stays out of their lives otherwise. Based on the recent practices of the Republicans, which seem to focus on showing people how bad government can be by forcing government to run inefficiently (or shutting it down altogether), leaving people to fend for themselves and calling them “moochers” when they need help, and implementing some sort of Fundamentalist “Christian” version of Sharia law, I can’t see people who lack faith in government turning to that party which has worked so hard to destroy faith in government.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby GlassHouse » Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:53 am

Minardil wrote:More proof of just how delusional the Right has become arrives in this article from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, in which it is "revealed" that this entire crisis was cooked up by Mr. Obama as a plot to make Republicans "look bad" so that Democrats could re-take control of Congress:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/15/obama-adviser-orchestrated-shutdown-showdown-author/
[....]


GlassHouse wrote:Well the damfools did it.... I wonder how long it will be before we hear that it's a Democrat(ic) plot to make the T-pers look bad?



do I get a prize?
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:09 am

GlassHouse wrote:
Minardil wrote:More proof of just how delusional the Right has become arrives in this article from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, in which it is "revealed" that this entire crisis was cooked up by Mr. Obama as a plot to make Republicans "look bad" so that Democrats could re-take control of Congress:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/15/obama-adviser-orchestrated-shutdown-showdown-author/
[....]


GlassHouse wrote:Well the damfools did it.... I wonder how long it will be before we hear that it's a Democrat(ic) plot to make the T-pers look bad?



do I get a prize?


Well, that was a given, and I've been hearing it from Republicans for days now, this was just the first time I'd seen the conspiracy theory in print like that.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby solicitr » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:33 pm

their desire to reopen the government without conditions.


"Pass every bit of it of it without reducing it by one red cent" is NOT the same as "without conditions." Rather, it's totally with conditions. Again, reality stood on its head.

--------------------

1. Roll Call 478 on H.J. Res. 59 (September 20, 2013)

Earlier in September, House Republicans voted to fund the government at current spending levels while strengthening our economy and protecting millions of American families by defunding ObamaCare.


Senate Democrats killed the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

2. Roll Call 497/498 on H.J. Res 59 (September 28, 2013)

With hours left until the government ran out of funding, House Republicans voted to keep the government open at current spending levels while protecting our economy by delaying the glitch-filled ObamaCare for one year and repealing the tax on medical devices like pacemakers and children’s hearing aids.

Senate Democrats killed the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it, causing the government shutdown.

3. Roll Call 504 on H.J. Res 59 (September 30, 2013)On September 30, the House GOP again voted to fund the government at current spending levels, while ensuring that Congress doesn’t receive special treatment under ObamaCare, and delaying ObamaCare’s individual mandate.

Again, Senate Democrats killed the measure in the Senate, and President Obama threatened to veto.

4. Roll Call 505 on H.J. Res 59 (September 30, 2013)

That same night, Republicans in the House voted to request a formal House-Senate conference, so Democrats and Republicans could sit down at the table and negotiate to resolve their differences.

Senate Democrats defeated that resolution, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

5. Voice Vote on Provide Local Funding for the District of Columbia Act (October 2, 2013)To help reopen parts of the government while Democrats refused to negotiate, House Republicans passed H.J. Res. 71 by voice vote, which would have restored funding for the government of the District of Columbia.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

6. Roll Call 513 on Open Our Nation’s Parks and Museums Act (October 2, 2013)

To help reopen parts of the government while Democrats refused to come to the table and work out differences, the House GOP voted to restore funding for the nation’s parks and museums – including the World War Two Memorial in Washington that has been closed to visiting veterans.

Senate Democrats killed the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

7. Roll Call 514 on Research for Lifesaving Cures Act (October 2, 2013)To help restore funding for vital cancer research and other lifesaving innovations, the House GOP voted to reopen the National Institute of Health.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill (see Harry Reid ask a reporter “why would we want to do that?” when asked if he would vote to resume funding for children’s cancer treatment), and President Obama threatened to veto it.

8. Roll Call 516 on Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act (October 3, 2013)

In order to make sure that the government shutdown doesn’t get in the way of paying our National Guard and Reserve, the House GOP voted for the Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

ise to America’s Veterans Act (October 3, 2013)The House GOP voted to provide immediate funding for vital veterans benefits and services during the government shutdown.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

10. Roll Call 522 on National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Act (October 4, 2013)The House GOP voted to provide immediate funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure Americans have access to emergency responders in the case of a disaster.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

11. Roll Call 524 on Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act (October 4, 2013) The House GOP voted to provide immediate funding for nutritional assistance for nearly 9 low-income million mothers and children.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests