User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 175

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I'm so glad I don't live in a country governed by angry children.

    Was reminded of 'The West Wing' too, of course:

    That show has been on my radar from an earlier video (when the president stands, no one sits or w/e). Think I might have to start a new series.
    Dirt Farmer

  2. #42
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Because the "compromise" in this instance is a sham.

    We are talking about defunding a law passed two election cycles ago. This is not a precedent for the form of democracy I would like to see.

    In fact, attempting to defund laws that survived two election cycles is something I would like to see punished at the polls in 2013 and 2014.
    Considering the passing of the law, against the wishes of the majority of the citizenry, is what caused Democrats to lose control of the House in the first place, and that the citizenry then revoted the Republicans into power *again* in the House the next election cycle, your position doesn't seem to take into account that this obstructionism by the Republicans essentially is the democratic Will of the People working its way through the system. The Republicans may end up losing the backing of the American People for this action by the next election cycle, but, in light of the above facts, I don't see how one can reasonably conclude that their actions are not in line with the mandate they were given by the People who have *twice* now voted them into power, after throwing the Dems out of office *specifically* for cramming this law through.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Considering the passing of the law, against the wishes of the majority of the citizenry, is what caused Democrats to lose control of the House in the first place, and that the citizenry then revoted the Republicans into power *again* in the House the next election cycle, your position doesn't seem to take into account that this obstructionism by the Republicans essentially is the democratic Will of the People working its way through the system. The Republicans may end up losing the backing of the American People for this action by the next election cycle, but, in light of the above facts, I don't see how one can reasonably conclude that their actions are not in line with the mandate they were given by the People who have *twice* now voted them into power, after throwing the Dems out of office *specifically* for cramming this law through.
    Considering that the other party is often voted in during midterms, and the senate has held *twice*, and Obama is a *two* term president, the idea that the republicans have a mandate to "specifically" to defund the Affordable Care Act is a huge stretch.

    I still maintain that shutting down the government to repeal a law passed so long ago is bad precedence.

    Edit: In addition, the Republican strategy of sabatoging then critising has been in place since Obama got elected. At times like this, that strategy is laid bare. It may have worked the first two years, but it can backfire big time now.

    I've never been politically irrate over anything other than Tea Party intransigence. I am usually apolitical, but I find what they are doing infuriating.

  4. #44

    Default

    I'm not sure Europe is going to be able to deal with the refugees from the Tea Party Dictatorship.

  5. #45
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    We are talking about defunding a law passed two election cycles ago. This is not a precedent for the form of democracy I would like to see.
    A law with much larger impact than most, passed during a temporary period of one-party government, against the strident wishes of half the country, who are now expected to just bend over and take it, from now into perpetuity? Fuck that.

    The form of democracy you are seeing is the same form of divided government that our constitutional system embodies, ensuring that huge changes can only happen through an enduring national consensus-it was the Democrats who took the oil out of the machine when they passed such huge legislation (without even enough time to fucking read it) without the support of the other party.

  6. #46
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Considering that the other party is often voted in during midterms, and the senate has held *twice*, and Obama is a *two* term president, the idea that the republicans have a mandate to "specifically" to defund the Affordable Care Act is a huge stretch.

    I still maintain that shutting down the government to repeal a law passed so long ago is bad precedence.

    Edit: In addition, the Republican strategy of sabatoging then critising has been in place since Obama got elected. At times like this, that strategy is laid bare. It may have worked the first two years, but it can backfire big time now.

    I've never been politically irrate over anything other than Tea Party intransigence. I am usually apolitical, but I find what they are doing infuriating.
    If the Republicans really do have a mandate to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Law, they should be able to do so on a straight up/down vote focused on this issue alone. The fact that they feel the only way they can accomplish this is to tie the issue to some other issue, like the continuing resolution or the debt ceiling, shows that they really don't have the broad support they claim. Yes, their whole strategy has been trying to scuttle the ACA before it can even be tried. I suspect they are not so much afraid that it will be bad for the country, as that it will be good, and do most if not all of what it claims.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #47
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    A law with much larger impact than most, passed during a temporary period of one-party government, against the strident wishes of half the country, who are now expected to just bend over and take it, from now into perpetuity? Fuck that.
    Republicans do not have the votes. Republicans did not, in more than one election, get the seat needed from voters, nor the presidency. On the subject of whether or not you must accept ACA from now on, that simply comes down to future elections. For example, you'll have to accept it at least until 2014, when another election will come up to possibly change the legislator's makeup and give Republicans enough votes in both house and senate to repeal (or defund or whatever method you want to take) ACA. That is theoretically how the whole system is suppose to work.

    What Republicans are saying is that they want to have things their way regardless of how many seats they have, regardless of the outcomes of elections, and they will pressure, in fact threaten, other members of the government and really all the American people with the consequences of government shutdown unless they are given what they want in disregard to the fact that they lack the votes and have not been given them by the past two elections the way the system is theoretically supposed to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The form of democracy you are seeing is the same form of divided government that our constitutional system embodies, ensuring that huge changes can only happen through an enduring national consensus-it was the Democrats who took the oil out of the machine when they passed such huge legislation (without even enough time to fucking read it) without the support of the other party.
    What the Democrats did was entirely within the system, and there is a way for Republicans to respond to it entirely in the system. You can persuade other legislators to change their vote (without making the government itself halt) or you can win some elections and get enough seats to pass the vote.

    Those things are the measures of our divided government and our constitutional system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I suspect they are not so much afraid that it will be bad for the country, as that it will be good, and do most if not all of what it claims.
    I've come to think much the same thing. It makes no political sense to go through so much trouble trying to stop an enormous failure on the part of your political opponents. They must be worried that it will be quite successful.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #48
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Republicans do not have the votes. Republicans did not, in more than one election, get the seat needed from voters, nor the presidency. On the subject of whether or not you must accept ACA from now on, that simply comes down to future elections. For example, you'll have to accept it at least until 2014, when another election will come up to possibly change the legislator's makeup and give Republicans enough votes in both house and senate to repeal (or defund or whatever method you want to take) ACA. That is theoretically how the whole system is suppose to work.

    What Republicans are saying is that they want to have things their way regardless of how many seats they have, regardless of the outcomes of elections, and they will pressure, in fact threaten, other members of the government and really all the American people with the consequences of government shutdown unless they are given what they want in disregard to the fact that they lack the votes and have not been given them by the past two elections the way the system is theoretically supposed to work.
    And the Democrats lack the votes for implementation in the House, which controls spending for the purpose (in part) of balancing the other branches of government, which is also how the system is supposed to theoretically work when a temporary one-party government seeks to impose its will on future governing coalitions-hence the tradition of only enacting laws of this sort through bipartisan support, representing national consensus.

  9. #49
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    And the Democrats lack the votes for implementation in the House, which controls spending for the purpose (in part) of balancing the other branches of government, which is also how the system is supposed to theoretically work when a temporary one-party government seeks to impose its will on future governing coalitions-hence the tradition of only enacting laws of this sort through bipartisan support, representing national consensus.
    Right, but the bill passed when Democrats had a majority in the house along with the senate and presidency. The question is, if the use of the house republicans' majority power is so clear cut, why resort to a shutdown?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #50
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I'd have to know exactly what this definition is, and what the others available are as well, to know exactly what this is saying.
    So looking at the recent data, it looks like working part time for economic reasons isn't up dramatically, but working part time for non-economic reasons is. The relevant definitions are:

    (3) Refers to those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for an economic reason such as slack work or unfavorable business conditions, inability to find full-time work, or seasonal declines in demand."
    (4) Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons. This excludes persons who usually work full time but worked only 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for reasons such as vacations, holidays, illness, and bad weather.
    I don't know more about the data is collected, but the definitions seem reasonable enough (although I suppose one could argue for "noneconomic reasons includes those trapped by the welfare system!").

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Huffington Post, eh?

    Too bad they didn't realize that, on a percentage basis, the bottom line has increased significantly more (~50%) than the top line.
    Well, I wasn't thrilled I couldn't find a better source than Huffington Post... but here's another view of similar data:



    Which ends with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by SoltasAtBloomberg
    I think the 30-hour rule in Obamacare is bad public policy that will eventually hurt full-time work, as do Conover and Graham. In fact, I’d like to get rid of the employer mandate entirely. But I also believe in thorough, objective use of data. And they show no evidence of a part-time surge yet.
    An article from Forbes reaches a similar conclusion.

    So, it could hurt part time work, but there isn't objective data to that effect that I can find thus far. I find it odd that healthcare is tied to our employer (although I understand the historical reasons). I could see a minor effect on shifting from full time to part time employment (which would sure suck for those affected), but I sure don't see signs of that yet.

Similar Threads

  1. Possible Shutdown of Government in United States - Effects on Troops
    By Vie in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 181
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 04:44 PM
  2. Czech Government Criticized for Surgical Castration of Sex Offenders
    By iwakar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 11:31 AM
  3. Government involvement in economy
    By Mycroft in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 11:17 AM
  4. Is the government out to get me?
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 03:32 PM
  5. PUTIN DISSOLVES RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 05:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO