[News] Government Shutdown Passed

• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-10-03 16:51

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155346:

  That's not what Obama said during the announcement. But I can't be 100% sure.

  
  
  

  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the ACA in the case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. However, the Court held that states cannot be forced to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion under penalty of losing their current Medicaid funding.

  
  
  And that one part they said wasn't constitutional was already removed.
  
  

  There’s a reason Republicans have been rushing to try and defund the Affordable Care Act before October 1, when major sections of the law take effect.
  
  Republicans know what polls show — that most Americans don’t know what’s in ObamaCare, but when told what the law actually includes, a strong majority support the law.
  
  Once state health insurance exchanges take effect, and premiums for all Americans go down, Republicans know the law will only become more popular and harder to repeal.
  
  Republicans who are throwing temper tantrums over sour grapes need to grow up.
  
  Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed it into law and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.

• M wrote on 2013-10-03 17:21
  No mo insults guys. I'm going to be nice and let there be one last warning regarding being civil to one another before some sort of administrative action is taken.
  
  Let's hate the government not each other!
• Perfectio wrote on 2013-10-03 17:28

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155342:

  Could you stop with the insults? If you want to have a discussion with people, at least have the basic respect towards others. Insults only brings about more insults. Then you have a fight on your hand, and that doesn't help push your point across

  
  
  I think your political ideology, and thus the opinions that stem from it, are not worthy of respect (again, similar to Fascism or Radical Islam, would you take me seriously if I said Hitler wasn't that bad a guy or that Osama Bin Laden was justified in planning 9/11? Free market libertarianism should be viewed in that regard). You essentially think that we should cut taxes on the rich and starve the poor because of the magic of the free market. Just because American political discourse is insane enough to think this is a good idea doesn't mean I have to pretend it's a reasonable political opinion.
  
  

  And like you said, they didn't back down. That's a fault in my book. They don't have to force the bill through right away. Compromise require something from both parties.

  
  
  Why should the Democrats compromise? Because the Republicans want the law gone? Do the Democrats have to obey the Republicans every whim, and if they don't, they'll crash the economy? Essentially, you are saying that it's the fault of the Democrats because they didn't cave to your preferred ideological option (the weakening of Obamacare) in the face of blackmail.
  
  Your position is essentially saying that it's the police's fault the hostages got shot because they didn't allow the bank robbers to leave with the money. The Democrats won multiple elections campaigning on national healthcare. Healthcare was declared constitutional. And the Republicans, because they could not overturn Obamacare via democracy, is attempting to do the equivalent of putting a gun to the head of the country. And considering that you hold an ideology that essentially says that the bank is illegitimate to start with, your opinion is extremely biased.
  
  

  And I clarify, me pointing that out as a fault does not mean I support what republicans are doing. They are wrong, but a conflict isn't always 1 right 1 wrong, it often time consist of two wrongs and both sides pointing out opposition's wrong while remain oblivious to their own mistakes.
  

  
  
  And not every conflict is two wrongs, and you have an ideological stake in portraying the side that supports public welfare as "wrong" because your ideological blinkers say that a public health system is wrong.
  
  

  
  No mo insults guys. I'm going to be nice and let there be one last warning regarding being civil to one another before some sort of administrative action is taken.

  
  
  Being "nice" to reactionaries when they're cheering on the destruction of the Republic is not my cup of tea. Besides, I haven't directly attacked him as a person - just his beliefs. Attacking someone's beliefs is what politics is about. He's welcome to defend the blood-spattered history of his ideology though.
• Tarvos wrote on 2013-10-03 18:47

  Quote from Perfectio;1155357:

  Why should the Democrats compromise?

  
  
  And this kind of thinking is exactly why the government is shut down.
  
  Personally I think the party system in this country is pants-on-head-retarded, but both sides need to compromise on things given the situation, the republicans giving up some of what they want, and the democrats as well.
  
  I think what the republicans are doing is disgusting, but both sides need to start thinking about their jobs as jobs given the situation and not petty squabble between who's sekret tree house club has the biggest congressional dick.
• Perfectio wrote on 2013-10-03 19:48
  "We don't have the votes to get what we want in a democracy, so let's threaten to destroy the country until the other side gives in!"
  
  This is a legitimate political tactic according to the posters in this thread. And according to the posters in this thread, the other side should GIVE IN in the name of "compromise"'".
  
  Would it be clear enough to people if the right wingers just dispensed with the legal formalities and just threatened an armed coup unless Obamacare is defunded? What they're doing now is pretty much a coup attempt: using force to get what they couldn't get via the democratic process.
  
  How about this for compromise: Obamacare gets delayed for a year, taxes on the rich go up to 90%. Give or take right?
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-10-03 19:53

  Quote from Perfectio;1155357:

  I think your political ideology, and thus the opinions that stem from it, are not worthy of respect (again, similar to Fascism or Radical Islam, would you take me seriously if I said Hitler wasn't that bad a guy or that Osama Bin Laden was justified in planning 9/11? Free market libertarianism should be viewed in that regard). You essentially think that we should cut taxes on the rich and starve the poor because of the magic of the free market. Just because American political discourse is insane enough to think this is a good idea doesn't mean I have to pretend it's a reasonable political opinion.
  
  
  
  Why should the Democrats compromise? Because the Republicans want the law gone? Do the Democrats have to obey the Republicans every whim, and if they don't, they'll crash the economy? Essentially, you are saying that it's the fault of the Democrats because they didn't cave to your preferred ideological option (the weakening of Obamacare) in the face of blackmail.
  
  Your position is essentially saying that it's the police's fault the hostages got shot because they didn't allow the bank robbers to leave with the money. The Democrats won multiple elections campaigning on national healthcare. Healthcare was declared constitutional. And the Republicans, because they could not overturn Obamacare via democracy, is attempting to do the equivalent of putting a gun to the head of the country. And considering that you hold an ideology that essentially says that the bank is illegitimate to start with, your opinion is extremely biased.
  
  
  
  And not every conflict is two wrongs, and you have an ideological stake in portraying the side that supports public welfare as "wrong" because your ideological blinkers say that a public health system is wrong.
  
  
  
  Being "nice" to reactionaries when they're cheering on the destruction of the Republic is not my cup of tea. Besides, I haven't directly attacked him as a person - just his beliefs. Attacking someone's beliefs is what politics is about. He's welcome to defend the blood-spattered history of his ideology though.

  
  
  
  I didn't mention my view on Economy once in this whole discussion. You thought that was my view on economy simply becauise I mention I am a libertarian. Which proves my point. I am not a representation of every libertarian ideologies. Just like I am not a supporter of hands off approach towards market. You basically just ridiculed me on something I don't even believe :/
  
  And compromise is not about who is right or wrong. Three approaches to conflicts are power based, right based and value based. Value based approach save the most resources and is normally the best approach. What you can do in a bargain situation like this is expand the offers. Democrats want to push the bill through, Republicans don't. So what if Democrats offer Republicans something else they want in exchange for their support on the bill?
  
  That's a example of value based approach to resolve conflict. Your shipping people off is a power based approach and is the most expensive one. Often there are blow backs because you didn't really resolve anything, you just took the easy way out.
• Perfectio wrote on 2013-10-03 20:17

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155369:

  I didn't mention my view on Economy once in this whole discussion. You thought that was my view on economy simply becauise I mention I am a libertarian. Which proves my point. I am not a representation of every libertarian ideologies. Just like I am not a supporter of hands off approach towards market. You basically just ridiculed me on something I don't even believe :/

  
  
  Now I'm not sure what you believe, or how deep your political understanding really is. And it sure took you a while to deny you weren't a market fundie. If you don't support a hands off approach to the market, then you're not a libertarian. Unless you're a libertarian socialist.
  

  
  And compromise is not about who is right or wrong. Three approaches to conflicts are power based, right based and value based. Value based approach ave the most resources and is normally the best approach. What you can do in a bargain situation like this is expand the offers. Democrats want to push the bill through, Republicans don't. So what if Democrats offer Republicans something else they want in exchange for their support on the bill?

  
  
  Because the Democrats giving in would basically announce that political extortion is a legitimate tactic. Essentially, you're saying that a political party should be able to shut down the government in order to overturn laws they don't like but don't have the votes to repeal, and that the other side should simply give in.
  
  

  [Image: http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/51524/large/tumblr_mu2ai6sgfU1qat9xfo1_500.png?1380814234]

  
  
  This is Republican "negotiating" in a nutshell.
  
  

  That's a example of value based approach to resolve conflict. Your shipping people off is a power based approach and is the most expensive one. Often there are blow backs because you didn't really resolve anything, you just took the easy way out.

  
  [/QUOTE]
  
  We already tried the other ways. Right wingers cannot be negotiated with, this is a political truism. The history of right wing politics going back to the 20th century is the use of force or fraud to oppress the people.
• Snowie Stormflower wrote on 2013-10-03 21:16
  [S]I think Obama would get a few more votes of he just stopped hanging onto that name "Obamacare".
  Some people probably don't like the fact that he's trying to force his name into history.[/S]
  
  *ahem*
  On a more serious note, they should think about a temporary compromise, at least, most of them probably don't even realise that, how much was it, ~2 million people have to suffer because they can't get along?
  (Who came up with that idea of making people pay for others' indeciveness anyway?)
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-10-03 21:20

  Quote from Snowie Stormflower;1155390:

  [S]I think Obama would get a few more votes of he just stopped hanging onto that name "Obamacare".
  Some people probably don't like the fact that he's trying to force his name into history.[/S]
  
  *ahem*
  On a more serious note, they should think about a temporary compromise, at least, most of them probably don't even realise that, how much was it, ~2 million people have to suffer because they can't get along?
  (Who came up with that idea of making people pay for others' indeciveness anyway?)

  
  
  I believe Fox New came up with the name "Obamacare". Just another sign how FOXNEWS is pure evil.
• Evaris wrote on 2013-10-03 22:16
  ahem.. this should explain everything.
  [video=youtube;3Q-OyhPDobY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q-OyhPDobY[/video]
  [video=youtube;HOYPpmVf-FM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOYPpmVf-FM[/video]
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2013-10-03 22:16

  Quote from Snowie Stormflower;1155390:

  [S]I think Obama would get a few more votes of he just stopped hanging onto that name "Obamacare".
  Some people probably don't like the fact that he's trying to force his name into history.[/S]
  
  *ahem*
  On a more serious note, they should think about a temporary compromise, at least, most of them probably don't even realise that, how much was it, ~2 million people have to suffer because they can't get along?
  (Who came up with that idea of making people pay for others' indeciveness anyway?)

  
  
  I believe the act is supposed to be officially called "Affordable Care Act". Like TLCBonaparte said, the term "Obamacare" was given from the Republican side of things.
  
  I thought many of the moderate Republican are just siding with the Tea Party because they don't want to lose their jobs or something, which is sort of understandable. Often, people with power wants to stay in power. The Tea Party Republicans are just after Obama because it is a Democrat doing Health Care reforms.
  
  I don't see what is wrong with having more affordable insurance. If you ever been on private insurance, those things are ridiculously expensive. However, if you do not have any insurance, any major accident will cost you more than you ever can afford.
  
  If the Republicans really had problems with government providing insurance, they should have go one step further and remove Medicaid and Medicare. After all, both are government insurances.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-10-03 23:02
  Democrats have agreed to Republican's budget demands, but republicans still refuse to reopen the government unless obamacare is entirely dismantled.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-10-03 23:55

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1155423:

  Democrats have agreed to Republican's budget demands, but republicans still refuse to reopen the government unless obamacare is entirely dismantled.

  
  
  That's a douche move. This shut down can't drag out, Republicans really need to think about picking which battle to fight.
• MIKEHUNT wrote on 2013-10-04 00:44
  Gosh, some people in this thread need to take a chill pill.
  
  
  
  That is go out side and scream your head off rather than attack people on mabination... And don't deny that your attacking a person and pass it off as "attacking another's beliefs" o.ozzz
  
  I know back seat moderating is looked down upon but seriously some people (the same people attacking others) are really acting in an unseemly manner x.x
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2013-10-04 01:00

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155442:

  That's a douche move. This shut down can't drag out, Republicans really need to think about picking which battle to fight.

  
  
  The Tea Party conservatives do not really care. I guess it kind of applies to the Republicans who follow them. They really have nothing to lose. They can push their agenda to the max.
  
  Barely people participate in the House/Senate elections, so they always get their seats anyways.