• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

White House Blaming the Shutdown on....

Just so I understand, in the US political system, laws don't need to be repealed? If a group doesn't like a law, they can just refuse to fund the government until the government ..... just removes the law? I don't get it. Was this always the plan?

At this point that sounds like an oligarchy, not a constitutional republic (As you say, the US is not a traditional democracy). The more sociopathic a group is, the more power they will wield in the government.
 
Nova_C said:
Just so I understand, in the US political system, laws don't need to be repealed? If a group doesn't like a law, they can just refuse to fund the government until the government ..... just removes the law? I don't get it. Was this always the plan?
Click to expand...
Well that would seem to be the case with many in DC. For example the DOJ refusing to enforce existing laws. Or Obama supplying support to a known terrorist group. The law won't be removed without repeal. The goal from what I understand was to delay, like Obama did for big business friends, until a review and time to get it right. Though it seems the only delays are those not written into the law but unilatterally implemented by the admin.

Nova_C said:
At this point that sounds like an oligarchy, not a constitutional republic (As you say, the US is not a traditional democracy). The more sociopathic a group is, the more power they will wield in the government.
Click to expand...
It does seem that way much of the time lately. Neither side seems to follow the constitution including the SCOTUS. The liberals are wielding all the power so your last statement rings pretty true. That's why we have obamacare in the first place instead of actual functional reform.
 
I find it funny how everyone wants to paint the US as a democracy. Yes, we do resemble an Oligarchy, much more than what we are supposed to be (Constitutional Republic).

Fortunately, there are many people who are starting to wake up. Unfortunately, I fear that it is too late for us.

Also, as was stated earlier, the republican lead House has passed 3 bills that would continue the funding of the government (many Democrats in the house voted for these bills). It was the democratically led Senate that refused to sign, or even vote on them (many Republicans in the Senate supported this action). Which makes me wonder if this shutdown was done on purpose.

Part, not all, but Part of the issue with the budget was the funding of the ACA. The US has already spent itself into oblivion, and you can blame Bush all you want, but the idiots who have run the country since then have to shoulder the blame as well. Though, as can be seen in the past, the Democrats (big party, not necessarily individuals) are great at blaming others, but not taking responsibility for their own mess.
 
Nova, it was a statement that you made, an observation I guess. And Tsst was stating that in this scenario, you are correct.
 
I would also like to add, that one of the budget plans passed by the House, and denied by the Senate stated that no one would be exempt from the ACA requirements. Meaning that all the Senate, Congress, President/al family, Big Business, etc. would have to buy into it.... It was also denied by the Democratically controlled Senate. They like to paint the Republicans in a bad light, all the while keeping the sheep from seeing the truth. That their leaders are actually wolves, just waiting for the right time to start chowing down.
 
tsst said:
The whole thing is a mess.

What we needed was healthcare/cost reform. What we got was another unsustainable entitlement program managed by the most inefficient group the fedgov.
Click to expand...

BINGO! And the reason we didn't get health care reform? Unlimited campaign contributions from corporations. Once the Supremes allowed that to happen, anyone with a net worth below mid-7 figures became irrelevant as far as Congress goes, because we don't pay the bills to get them re-elected. The healthcare/insurance complex has too much crank in the current system to ever be properly reformed to control costs; in fact, if we did make healthcare affordable, we wouldn't really need insurance anymore, would we?
 
Nova_C said:
At this point that sounds like an oligarchy, not a constitutional republic (As you say, the US is not a traditional democracy). The more sociopathic a group is, the more power they will wield in the government.
Click to expand...

I contend that while we are officially a constitutional republic, by function we have an oligokleptocracy.
 
tsst said:
The goal from what I understand was to delay, like Obama did for big business friends, until a review and time to get it right. Though it seems the only delays are those not written into the law but unilatterally implemented by the admin.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand where Obama gets the authority to make such proclamations as he does. When did our form of government become a dictatorship?

And furthermore, I'm not sure I would really say that ObamaCare was legitimately passed into law. Was the bill subjected to committee hearings at all? Did those "representatives" even know what they were voting on? I do not believe that ANYONE who voted on it actually read the 2700 page bill. Matter of fact, I believe that the document wasn't even printed up when it was voted on. Didn't even Pelosi say that they needed to pass the bill into law in order to be able to find out what was in it? Can you really think of a more idiotic statement for someone in that position to say? Quite frankly, I do not believe that the majority of the PEOPLE in the USA want anything to do with this ObamaCare. I believe that it was passed into law via underhanded and nefarious means, which means that quite likely large sums of money changed hands somewhere to get this done. Heck, I have already heard of people locally who have had their insurance through their employers CANCELLED. I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg, with insurance agents saying point blank that people who are now paying for their insurance are going to have increases in their premiums. Not trying to sound hard hearted or anything, but just because I may be able to afford health insurance NOW doesn't mean that I want to run the risk of not being able to afford it tomorrow so that someone else will be able to afford it then. Can anyone show me in the US Constitution where it states that health insurance is a RIGHT?

And in a nutshell, WHO is going to benefit from a law such as this? Seriously, I sure do wish I could get congress to pass a law that dictated every citizen of this country had to become a paying member of CornSnakes.com or else pay a tax penalty. That would just be lovely for me..... :D As for everyone else...... :sobstory:
 
Guruofchem said:
BINGO! And the reason we didn't get health care reform? Unlimited campaign contributions from corporations. Once the Supremes allowed that to happen, anyone with a net worth below mid-7 figures became irrelevant as far as Congress goes, because we don't pay the bills to get them re-elected. The healthcare/insurance complex has too much crank in the current system to ever be properly reformed to control costs; in fact, if we did make healthcare affordable, we wouldn't really need insurance anymore, would we?
Click to expand...

This is a very good point. It has allowed our government to be ruled completely by the people with the deepest pockets. And how anyone for even an instant can think that money will not influence the recipients just completely boggles my mind. Those contributions are going to have strings attached. Strings that are going to be much more influential than the wishes of the constituents of our "representatives".

I was thinking I would probably not live long enough to witness a second violent American revolution. Now I'm not so sure..... People are getting more and more pissed every day, it seems. And the bozos in Washington D.C. are either not listening, or just don't give a damn thinking they are immune to any repercussions from their destructive actions.
 
tsst said:
Who were you referring to in the statement?
Click to expand...

Whoever is most willing to collapse the US economy in order to get what they want. Right now there's a couple Republicans who've suggested they don't care how far this has to go to get what they want, and when asked what they want, it was "I'm not even sure."

I think it's pretty clear that I think Republicans are wrong for doing this, but not because I think Democrats are right or better, but because this isn't supposed to be how the government is operated. You shouldn't get to say "This law that was passed and signed a couple years ago doesn't work for me, so remove it or we fund nothing." There's a way to do things and if there isn't enough support to repeal a law, then extortion is not justified.

The sociopaths in this case are the few (very few) Republicans who have said they don't care how long this goes on for, so long as they get something out of this. When asked what they want, they said "I don't even know." Most Republicans are trying to do something to end this, but the government is absolutely right for not allowing a precedent to be established where laws can just be defunded.

The administration and the senate has made it clear that if the house submits a bill that does not defund the ACA, it'll pass immediately. All Republicans have to do to end this is say "We'll defeat the ACA the way the government and constitution are set up to defeat laws we shouldn't have - by passing a repeal." But they're not.
 
Nova_C said:
Whoever is most willing to collapse the US economy in order to get what they want. Right now there's a couple Republicans who've suggested they don't care how far this has to go to get what they want, and when asked what they want, it was "I'm not even sure."

I think it's pretty clear that I think Republicans are wrong for doing this, but not because I think Democrats are right or better, but because this isn't supposed to be how the government is operated. You shouldn't get to say "This law that was passed and signed a couple years ago doesn't work for me, so remove it or we fund nothing." There's a way to do things and if there isn't enough support to repeal a law, then extortion is not justified.

The sociopaths in this case are the few (very few) Republicans who have said they don't care how long this goes on for, so long as they get something out of this. When asked what they want, they said "I don't even know." Most Republicans are trying to do something to end this, but the government is absolutely right for not allowing a precedent to be established where laws can just be defunded.

The administration and the senate has made it clear that if the house submits a bill that does not defund the ACA, it'll pass immediately. All Republicans have to do to end this is say "We'll defeat the ACA the way the government and constitution are set up to defeat laws we shouldn't have - by passing a repeal." But they're not.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. The senate and admin have made it clear they want all or nothing. There were compromise submissions made to delay, to roll back unilateral changes Obama made, to fund everything else while they discussed obamacare, etc Harry rejected them all. Harry's rejection to anything but giving Obama a full purse points to the dems being every bit as culpable in the shutdown. Let's not forget Obama either instead of sitting down and working with both sides he is off on a pep rally tour.

The precident has long ago been set. Harry himself has threatened to kill funding in the past. This is not new or rep only by a long shot.

Look we both know where we stand on big gov issues. You are obviously pro big gov, control of healthcare and other liberties. I am not. We will have to agree to disagree. You think the reps are sociopaths I think some on both sides are. :shrugs:
 
Last edited:
tsst said:
You are incorrect. The senate and admin have made it clear they want all or nothing. There were compromise submissions made to delay, to roll back unilateral changes Obama made, to fund everything else while they discussed obamacare, etc Harry rejected them all. Harry's rejection to anything but giving Obama a full purse points to the dems being every bit as cullpable in the shutdown. Let's not forget Obama either instead of sitting down and working with both sides he is off on a pep rally tour.

The precident has long ago been set. Harry himself has threatened to kill funding in the past. This is not new or rep only by a long shot.

Look we both know where we stand on big gov issues. You are obviously pro big gov, control of healthcare and other liberties. I am not. We will have to agree to disagree. You think the reps are sociopaths I think some on both sides are. :shrugs:
Click to expand...


Exactly! Nova, I have no idea where you are getting that information but it is just plain wrong. I'm sitting here in midst of all of this, getting annoucements every hour (at work.. for the government...) and what Tsst said is true.

I just want to point out - there are a good multi thousand of us here, in my location and *not a single person* that I've met here blames the Republicans, due to the reasons stated above.

Obama even went as far as inviting everyone for dinner in a "show of getting along" and a "show of attempting to work together" but when everyone sat down, he made the statement that he only invited them there to re-iterate that he "refuses to back down on this". i.e. NOT EVEN AN ATTEMPT to work it out.
 
There are multi-thousands, on both sides, who want to point the finger at the other side. That's a debate that nobody's going to win.

The problem remains. We're all currently being screwed. The fact that people can't stop pointing fingers and laying blame and playing the 'it's THEIR fault' game is the problem.

Both sides need to grow up and get back to work. Or more accurately, all three of them.
 
SarahP said:
There are multi-thousands, on both sides, who want to point the finger at the other side. That's a debate that nobody's going to win.

The problem remains. We're all currently being screwed. The fact that people can't stop pointing fingers and laying blame and playing the 'it's THEIR fault' game is the problem.

Both sides need to grow up and get back to work. Or more accurately, all three of them.
Click to expand...

True to a degree BUT, as I stated above the republican side actually HAS TRIED to negotiate to make both sides happy. The Senate side just plain refuses to budge, or even attempt a "happy medium" negotiation.
So, looking at this from a logical standpoint, who would be more "to blame" then the other side? The one actually trying to work on it, or the one saying "My way or nothing"? C'mon
 
tsst said:
Look we both know where we stand on big gov issues. You are obviously pro big gov, control of healthcare and other liberties. I am not. We will have to agree to disagree. You think the reps are sociopaths I think some on both sides are. :shrugs:
Click to expand...

What's interesting is the fact that a sociopath wants control. IF someone wants a large amount of power and control, how would you go about doing that? Make everything answerable to YOU, to YOUR programs.. Make all of the network and puppet strings lead to YOU. I'll leave it at that.
 
The administration already tried to compromise, acquiescing to Republicans to get the CR passed:
How the Whitehouse sees the shutdown

Republican Marlin Stutzman says that they have to get something out of this, but he doesn't know what that is.

CBS Poll suggests more people blame the GOP for the shutdown

Only one third of Americans polled support repealing, defunding or delaying Obamacare

Basically, if you guys are right, that the Republicans are right for doing this, then any law is up for grabs. Republicans can demand Food Stamp programs be ended or they shut down the government. Democrats can demand Voter ID laws be banned or they shut down the government.

The ACA was passed, signed into law, survived multiple attempts to repeal it and was cleared by the Supreme Court. If the Republicans are in the right for demanding it be defunded despite passing all those hurdles, then any law is up for grabs.

And just for funsies: More people support ACA than Obamacare, even though they're exactly the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top