The Guvmint Shutdown

[Valpo Cardinal Fan]

One of my favorite t-shirts.

[SHOW]

[Socnorb11]

If I could redeem myself a bit here, the reason I didn't say, "[expletive] you" is because that's not what I meant. I am seriously annoyed by much "both sides" rhetoric because I think it usually relies at ignoring detail in what is really happening in favor of automatically assigning equality to opposing positions. In this case, opposing positions are qualitatively and enormously different. And in the case of "fringe" (not the word I'd choose) primary pressure, there is just no symmetry at all. But I would genuinely be interested in hearing a good argument for why it's all equal bipolarization here. That's not shouting insults.

Absolutely.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the liberals already compromised on universal health care? Don't they really prefer a single-payer plan, but "settled" for what we've got?

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the liberals already compromised on universal health care? Don't they really prefer a single-payer plan, but "settled" for what we've got?

Right - the whole ACA is a giant testament to compromise.

And going further - this is a very dangerous precedent the Tea Party bomb-throwers are trying to establish. What does it mean to allow the Congress the ability to rewrite or cancel any legislation that another Congress and President made into law by refusing to pass the annual budget? What's the point in the legislative process if that is allowed? Just put all legislation - future or past - into the budget bill and wait until both houses of the legislative and the executive can agree on it.

What they are doing is a dagger aimed at the heart of our Constitutional democracy. It can't be allowed to happen without critically weakening what the Founding Fathers so meticulously put into place.

[Socnorb11]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the liberals already compromised on universal health care? Don't they really prefer a single-payer plan, but "settled" for what we've got?

Right - the whole ACA is a giant testament to compromise.

And going further - this is a very dangerous precedent the Tea Party bomb-throwers are trying to establish. What does it mean to allow the Congress the ability to rewrite or cancel any legislation that another Congress and President made into law by refusing to pass the annual budget? What's the point in the legislative process if that is allowed? Just put all legislation - future or past - into the budget bill and wait until both houses of the legislative and the executive can agree on it.

What they are doing is a dagger aimed at the heart of our Constitutional democracy. It can't be allowed to happen without critically weakening what the Founding Fathers so meticulously put into place.

THIS is the big issue. The two sides can disagree about the ACA 'til the cows come home (and that's fine), but governing like THIS is a slippery slope.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the liberals already compromised on universal health care? Don't they really prefer a single-payer plan, but "settled" for what we've got?

I belive you are not correct. They, the left, insisted that this is what we got. Republicans had no say in it as they had no control of the House, the Senate or the Presidency.

Who were liberals compromising with to settle at this system? Democrats that didn't want the single payer system.

Maybe you can disassociate democrats and liberals and say that the liberals did in fact compromise with the democrats, but to suggest or imply that the republicans are the reason it's not a single payer system is wrong. I don't know if you were doing that, but the left was in total control when this legislation was passed. If the right had even one of the house, senate or white house, the ACA wouldn't have been passed in the first place.

This came off as snarky so I'll edit it.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

The two sides can disagree about the ACA 'til the cows come home (and that's fine), but governing like THIS is a slippery slope.

Exactly.

And, to my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done before.

[Fat Strat]

Yeah. Fat was responding specifically to TFG's comment. I don't think it's appropriate to second guess people's motivations. Just state why you think the premise is incorrect or harmful.

I guess I should explain myself more, even though I thought ghost's comment that I've quoted summarized it well enough.

I was not talking about the current situation. I really was just commenting on TFG's post -- that, as TFG said, I was taught that the more extreme you get on the political spectrum the closer you end up, like a horseshoe. Kind of like this...



What does that have to do with the current debate? Almost nothing. Which is why I tried to make a quick one sentence comment to TFG that I didn't think would de-rail the rest of thread............. Oops?

[Socnorb11]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the liberals already compromised on universal health care? Don't they really prefer a single-payer plan, but "settled" for what we've got?

I belive you are not correct. They, the left, insisted that this is what we got. Republicans had no say in it as they had no control of the House, the Senate or the Presidency.

Who were liberals compromising with to settle at this system? Democrats that didn't want the single payer system.

Maybe you can disassociate democrats and liberals and say that the liberals did in fact compromise with the democrats, but to suggest or imply that the republicans are the reason it's not a single payer system is wrong. I don't know if you were doing that, but the left was in total control when this legislation was passed. If the right had even one of the house, senate or white house, the ACA wouldn't have been passed in the first place.

This came off as snarky so I'll edit it.

I don't think the Democrats ever "expected" to have control of the House and Senate, to be honest............ so no single-payer bill was ever written and proposed. They proposed something that they thought they had a chance at passing, rather than something that the majority of Democrats want.

In that regard, it was a compromise on their part. That being said, I get your point. I can't necessarily say that 100% of Democrats are compromising........ but I think that they've compromised collectively.


I still don't get why the Republicans nominated a presidential candidate who pioneered universal health care in our country, when it turns out that they don't really want it. Or maybe they do want it, just not on Obama's watch? Who knows...........

[Freed Roger]

Would it be paranoid to sense the "divide and conquer" as part of the tea party strategy in play again?

As in "those gubmint workers and programs...,see- we don't even miss them! And they have all those benefits and salary that you average people don't get! It's been a two whole days and I haven't missed them moochers one bit...We don't need them after all. Grab your cyber- torches and pitchforks private sector workers! "

The shutdown does affect a lot of people -directly/indirectly, as the media is pointing out. But those Fox clips from the J Stewart...

Percentage-wise -the directly affected are a minority that can be targeted and denigrated.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the liberals already compromised on universal health care? Don't they really prefer a single-payer plan, but "settled" for what we've got?

I belive you are not correct. They, the left, insisted that this is what we got. Republicans had no say in it as they had no control of the House, the Senate or the Presidency.

Who were liberals compromising with to settle at this system? Democrats that didn't want the single payer system.

Maybe you can disassociate democrats and liberals and say that the liberals did in fact compromise with the democrats, but to suggest or imply that the republicans are the reason it's not a single payer system is wrong. I don't know if you were doing that, but the left was in total control when this legislation was passed. If the right had even one of the house, senate or white house, the ACA wouldn't have been passed in the first place.

This came off as snarky so I'll edit it.

I don't think the Democrats ever "expected" to have control of the House and Senate, to be honest............ so no single-payer bill was ever written and proposed. They proposed something that they thought they had a chance at passing, rather than something that the majority of Democrats want.

I don't quite follow. The left surely should have been expecting the route that took place in the 2008 elections. And, I may be misremembering, but I thought they at least talked about a single payer system, how far it advanced, I don't know. But, the notion of it was killed by guys like Mike Ross and those in his 'coalition'. It took a long time to get the ACA passed, surely they had time to mold the legislation in any way they wanted.

Regardless, the initial point remains that any compromise was within the democratic party and not across the aisle, iirc.