US Government Shutdown

[Revoltingest]

The Republicans lost the election. Obama won fair and square. They (the Republicans) should accept the result - that's democracy - and stop obstructing the course of governance.

Budget fights are part of this process. Gov shut downs happen regularly, & it's not just Dem administrations suffering Congress. (This is the 18th such event since the 70s.) It's a messy & inefficient system, but this is business as usual. And if it weren't for obstructionists, we would've been suffering thru Hillarycare (an even worse option). So obstructionism is here to stay, & ain't all that bad. It just p***** off those who aren't getting what they feel entitled to get.

 

[Treks]

Okay Reverend Rick, can you tell us Union Jack types what gap Obamacare is supposed to fill then, please, if everyone is covered in one way or another?

I always thought it was a case in America that if you couldn't pay for it, you didn't get it. There was a show on tellie here the other day about a man with giant *ahems* and he was going to die - the hospital had to operate on him for free because no one else was going to help him. He was lucky they gave him such charity, yet his condition was life-threatening.

And just for the record I barely know anything about politics in my own country let alone anybody elses, I'm just curious.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Okay Reverend Rick, can you tell us Union Jack types what gap Obamacare is supposed to fill then, please, if everyone is covered in one way or another?

I always thought it was a case in America that if you couldn't pay for it, you didn't get it. There was a show on tellie here the other day about a man with giant *ahems* and he was going to die - the hospital had to operate on him for free because no one else was going to help him. He was lucky they gave him such charity, yet his condition was life-threatening.

And just for the record I barely know anything about politics in my own country let alone anybody elses, I'm just curious.

Treks, my problem with the ACA is that it does NOT give everyone care. If it did, I could get on board.

We are going to borrow a whole bunch of money and not help the folks the bill was suppose to cover. The least among us are going to get fined because they did not come up with their part of the money that many do not have to give if they wanted to.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Who is to blame? Democrats in General? Obama specifically? Republicans in General? Tea party members in General? John Boehner specifically? Both? None?

There is no one to blame, but I think that if the government is shut down for too long the Republicans will be blamed for it. The Democrats have the upper hand just like they did during the Clinton administration. They have followed procedure, passed the bill, and it passed judicial scrutiny. Knowing the blame will fall upon them the Republicans are seeking now any kind of consolation prize.

 

[freethinker44]

One generation drives a cadillac while the next generation walks when both generations could have had a toyota.

How can you be so anti-socialism and believe this. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. It's not right one to have luxury while another suffers, especially if both could live well if the other just gave up the luxury.

 

[Reverend Rick]

How can you be so anti-socialism and believe this. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. It's not right one to have luxury while another suffers, especially if both could live well if the other just gave up the luxury.

OK, lets apply this to a global scale.

Would you be willing to give up the ACA to give everyone on the planet clean water to drink and cook?

We flush our toilets with clean water here in this country. The poorest among us look rich to some folks in the world.

Just saying, if you would keep the ACA would you be any better than the wealthy you rail against?

This is just a hypothetical question.

 

[freethinker44]

OK, lets apply this to a global scale.

Would you be willing to give up the ACA to give everyone on the planet clean water to drink and cook?

We flush our toilets with clean water here in this country. The poorest among us look rich to some folks in the world.

Just saying, if you would keep the ACA would you be any better than the wealthy you rail against?

This is just a hypothetical question.

I don't like the ACA anymore than the next guy. It should be a single-payer system. And I complete agree with the hypothetical scenario. No one in the world should suffer unnecessarily. I'm not saying we should take from the wealthy so I can be wealthy too, I am saying no one deserves to be or should be wealthy. Anywhere.

 

[Falvlun]

OK, lets apply this to a global scale.

Would you be willing to give up the ACA to give everyone on the planet clean water to drink and cook?

We flush our toilets with clean water here in this country. The poorest among us look rich to some folks in the world.

Just saying, if you would keep the ACA would you be any better than the wealthy you rail against?

This is just a hypothetical question.

I don't know anyone who would choose the ACA over giving every single person clean water. It's strange that you think some people would.

Remember, that even those who support the ACA do not think it's some great and perfect system. It's basically a stop-gap measure, which regulates some of the worst excesses of the ridiculously capitalistic health insurance system that conservatives support, while giving more people access to obtaining health insurance-- again, the conservative answer to providing health care.

Liberals ultimately want a single-payer system. The ACA is simply an attempt to regulate the conservative system.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I would rather have socialised medicine than this monumental waste of money on the unaffordable care act. If it helped EVERYONE I would not be so opposed to it.

If I went to the car lot and agreed to purchase a car and then the price I negotiated was perhaps 5 times as much when I came to pick it up, who in their right mind would agree to that?

This is why I support the defunding of Obamacare.

 

[YmirGF]

This is why I support the defunding of Obamacare.

Pity Biden and Obama couldn't be impeached for good measure. There is still time for that though.

 

[freethinker44]

I would rather have socialised medicine than this monumental waste of money on the unaffordable care act. If it helped EVERYONE I would not be so opposed to it.

If I went to the car lot and agreed to purchase a car and then the price I negotiated was perhaps 5 times as much when I came to pick it up, who in their right mind would agree to that?

This is why I support the defunding of Obamacare.

I agree with you, but I don't support defunding the ACA because the alternative is going back to what we had. The ACA is at least a step in the right direction, as bad as it is, it is one step closer to socialized medicine.

 

[Falvlun]

I would rather have socialised medicine than this monumental waste of money on the unaffordable care act. If it helped EVERYONE I would not be so opposed to it.

If I went to the car lot and agreed to purchase a car and then the price I negotiated was perhaps 5 times as much when I came to pick it up, who in their right mind would agree to that?

This is why I support the defunding of Obamacare.

Where are you getting these numbers?

The fight to defund Obamacare has probably cost the taxpayer much more than if the Republicans had spent the effort to fix some of the problems and facilitate it's implementation.

But I don't see anyone crying over that wasted money. So, I find the conservative cry over wasted money to be hypocritical, at best.

 

[maninthewilderness]

I don't like the ACA anymore than the next guy. It should be a single-payer system. And I complete agree with the hypothetical scenario. No one in the world should suffer unnecessarily. I'm not saying we should take from the wealthy so I can be wealthy too, I am saying no one deserves to be or should be wealthy. Anywhere.

This is crazy talk!
Most of those who suffer in this world do so because if the poor decisions they have made, or that their parents have made.
And saying that "no one deserves to be wealthy" flies in the face of the very nature of being human.
It is a universal human ethos that one should be rewarded for one's hard work.
It is contrary to human ethos that one should have the fruit of one's hard work taken from them and given to those who did not work.
Even in socialistic and communistic societies the parasitic "freeloader" is despised.

There is no one to blame, but I think that if the government is shut down for too long the Republicans will be blamed for it. The Democrats have the upper hand just like they did during the Clinton administration.

Nope.
The Republicans are offering a partial shutdown, funding specific government functions.
The Democrates are saying it's "all or nothing".
If the Democrats really want to limit or reduce the suffering of the people, why not negotiate and fund as much of the government as possible while still negotiating for more.
Basically, they are saying "Yeah, we could open parks and vet services and other services, and keep negotiating for more....but that would look like compromising...so we would rather the whole government be shut down if we cannot get our way.

It's basically a stop-gap measure, which regulates some of the worst excesses of the ridiculously capitalistic health insurance system that conservatives support, while giving more people access to obtaining health insurance--

Wrong.
The poor have always had access to obtaining health insurance.
But the poor generally make poor choices and squander their money on other things.
They do this mostly because they can use ERs as their healthcare provider....as ERs cannot refuse to treat anyone and the poor cannot be forced to pay.
The poor know that they can go to the ER and be treated, but the ER cannot foreclose on their home, or repo their car, or take back the services provided, or imprison them.
Basically the ER can only ruin their credit (and the poor already have ruined credit) and pass on the cost to those who can pay.
Obamacare just passes on the cost to those who can pay on a national scale.
It will bankrupt this nation.

Liberals ultimately want a single-payer system.

And exactly who would that "single-payer" be?
"The government"?

The government does not have any money that is not provided by the tax-payers of this nation.
So "single-payer" = "TAX-PAYER".
And that is not a "single-payer"....it is MILLIONS OF TAX-PAYERS.

It's not right one to have luxury while another suffers, especially if both could live well if the other just gave up the luxury.

Why should I not have luxury goods simply because someone else cannot afford those same goods?
If I manage my money well and save and plan to have a luxury good, why should I be denied because someone else cannot manage their money and makes poor financial decisions?
This is counter to human nature.

"Yes, I know you have saved and sacrificed and made thrifty decisions and managed your money well, just so you can have this beautiful home and that nice car.
But Bob does not have a nice home or a car.
He lives in a cardboard box in the park.
Yes, he uses his, begged, money to buy crack cocaine....but really, why should you have a nice home when he is "forced" to live in a cardboard box?
If you sell your luxury home, and then give crack-head Bob half the proceeds, then you both can afford to rent a nice trailer.

Doesn't that sound fair?"

 

[freethinker44]

It is a universal human ethos that one should be rewarded for one's hard work.

This from a guy who has no problem with people being paid slave wages. Complete hypocrite.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This from a guy who has no problem with people being paid slave wages. Complete hypocrite.

To be fair, he didn't claim that he followed it... AND he did not say that the reward for work should be more than slave wages.

 

[maninthewilderness]

This from a guy who has no problem with people being paid slave wages. Complete hypocrite.

Care to clarify?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is contrary to human ethos that one should have the fruit of one's hard work taken from them and given to those who did not work.

If you're right about this, why are there people out there who disagree with you?

 

[freethinker44]

Care to clarify?

You don't remember this thread where you spent the whole thing arguing against an increase in minimum wage? So now you are saying wealthy people deserve to be paid for their hard work, but people who make minimum wage don't?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You don't remember this thread where you spent the whole thing arguing against an increase in minimum wage? So now you are saying wealthy people deserve to be paid for their hard work, but people who make minimum wage don't?

I thought he was saying that the wealthy have the right not to work, complete access to everyone else's work, and give as little as possible to motivate everyone else to work.

Let's not forget that some "work" is far more valuable - at least in our culture - than other "work." People at the bottom who put in far more effort and dedication into their three jobs couldn't make as much in their entire lifetime as someone sitting on their bum in a corner office makes in a day or two of clicking on a mouse. Heck, returns on investments for some of these folks is larger than a worker can make in years.

The idea that the capitalist market economy is fair is a fantasy, and I'm entertained by the fact that it's promoted by the middle class.

I do wish that someone would give the Republicans a sandbox to govern rather than a country. When you crap all over a sandbox, no one cares... but a lot of lives can be ruined by crapping all over a country.

 

[Falvlun]

maninthewilderness, if you are going to quote people, you need to have their name attached to the quote, especially if you are going to mash different people's posts together in one post.