Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Government Shutdown

520 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

 

If that is truly the case, I guess this is just another distraction created by the right to keep their few faithful thinking they're actually doing something besides obstruct.

 

Quickly...or even take your time, but name me 2 significant pieces of legislation that actually effect some positive direction for the majority of people in this country that this Congress has collaberated on, discussed, debated, voted on and passed, and ultimately signed into law.

 

If gerrymandering is so "overstated" why is it such a priority for the Repubtards? And why do they spend more money and time on this effort rather than something that may actually benefit the citizens of this country.

 

 

Seems to me its a distraction by the left, since the majority of criticism comes from that side of the political aisle. 

 

Bipartisan student loan act of 2013 and the reauthorization of the violence against women act.  Both spent time being debated, discussed and eventually a compromise was reached that allowed both to pass.  

 

And its not as much of a priority for republicans as some have indicated.  Its not happening across the country, just in a handful of districts.  It only happens in a few districts, and its impact on the current setup in the house is overstated. 

 

From the Washington Post article I linked earlier:

 

 

 

Why do Democrats have a somewhat chronic disadvantage in these graphs, especially in the last 20 years? Part of the reason is that Democratic votes are increasingly concentrated in urban areas where they are more likely to waste votes with large majorities. Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden have simulated thousands of redistricting plans in a handful of states and found Democrats generally do worse when districts are constrained to be compact (that is, as close to simple shapes like circles and squares as possible).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

And its not as much of a priority for republicans as some have indicated.  Its not happening across the country, just in a handful of districts.  It only happens in a few districts, and its impact on the current setup in the house is overstated. 

 

From the Washington Post article I linked earlier:

 

 

And from another study published in the Hew York Times:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/redistricting-likely-to-hamper-democratic-efforts-in-2014-study-finds/?_r=0

 

"FairVote, an organization that examines voting patterns and laws, predicts that Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2014 unless Democrats meet the unlikely threshold of winning 56 percent of the vote nationwide.

In nonpresidential elections, the president’s party rarely gains seats in Congress.

Few external factors are likely to change what has effectively become a fixed game, FairVote said. Republicans seem likely to hold the House even if Democrats have another banner year like 2008. Even the ever-growing flow of money into politics is unlikely to make a difference in the outcome of races, the study concluded."

 

Imagine that, having to win an election 56% to 44% to actually win... not 51%, but 56%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

A clear minority of the populace has an oversized influence in deciding our nation's policies based solely on their concerted efforts to marginalize other Americans' right to vote.

 

Is there anyone who truly thinks the GOP wouldn't cry foul at this obvious attempt to steal elections if the tables were turned?

 

As it is, gerrymandering works to the GOP's advantage, so complaints about a few million voters being effectively disenfranchised every election cycle falls on deaf ears. 

 

The GOP won't lift a finger to advance democratic principles in this country because the party lacks the desire to govern in any sort of equitable manner that would compel a majority of US citizens to vote for them.

 

The founding fathers wanted representation in the US House (The purveyor of our nation's looming shutdown) to be proportional to a state's population. 

 

Well the majority of NC voters wanted the democratic party to represent them in Washington DC, yet the GOP provides the greatest number of representatives.  The majority of Americans voters wanted the democratic party to represent them in the US House too, yet the GOP is in control.   Why?  Simply because of unethical behavior on the part of politicians and their corporate sponsors.

 

What exactly would you call a system where the vote of the majority is systematically and intentionally disregarded due to collusion by political and corporate interests?  

 

Fascism?

 

What has historically occurred in societies where the majority feels the system is rigged against them?

 

Keep it up GOP, your day is coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

For some reason the Repubtards are having a very difficult time understanding they've lost the last 2 elections, pretty handily, I might add. And they believe they can extort their way back into relevancy by continuing with the threats of debt ceiling and trying to hold off the ACA, neither of which have anything to do with the spending bill on the table to keep the government running.

Here's the problem, Tea Baggers. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which people refer to as "Obamacare" was signed into law in March 2010. So, rather than try to fix the law or tweak the law or make any improvements, they've simply gone about the weekly routine of voting to repeal Obamacare in Congress. The Congress has wasted time and money taking this vote some 35+ times now. Guess what, the ACA is still a law and Congress hasn't come up with a better alternative in the 3.5 years they've had at their disposal to do something.

Rather than distract everyone with the debt ceiling threats and the Obamacare issues, the Repubtards would be better served by simply coming up with a budget other than the trainwreck they came up with in March.... which is the root cause of the looming shutdown today.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-gop-budget-97504.html


We must pass the ACA to find out what's in it. Fug you fugging Democrats for fugging with my dad's job on Cherry Point marine airbase. Democrats never compromise on anything. By the way navy jackass sir, the house and senate controlled at the time are the one's who passed the bill and by the way bought Republican support by exclusions and state funding to vote for it, low life politicians . You just pissed on an ant hill sir. The dems had there way for the Obama's first two years and the citizens responded by giving the repubs the house. Before you answer, learn about indirect consequence and moral hazard. Good intentions does not always mean good results like the great war on poverty or the last Iraq war. We do not live in a utopia society but a society that demands respect and people like you "progressives" and establishment Repubturds have degraded our moral and economic standing in this world by acting like children.

It takes two to tango....

Working for the NCDOR, I know how much this ACA is going to hurt. I am getting married next year and with the new rates that ACA I will not be able to put my wife to be up there with my insurance. I do not understand why our state insurance has to go up for states that have high insurance to lower theirs. I know about struggle, everyday I have small businesses barely keeping their heads above water come into my office and with the ACA coming to affect it will get worse for them.

I am tired of the government playing 'God' with our well being and other nations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Does anyone on this damn board understand economics because even economist I talk to in research say this is going to be a disaster.

We are not ready for ACA and after three years to prepare, this is a disgrace......
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Obamacare was a part of the Democratic platform in 2008. Obamacare is the brainchild of none other than Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. The Mass program established by then-Governor Romney was the blueprint for Obamacare.

Obamacare was passed and signed into law in March 2010. The right took it to the Supreme Court, which is a Bush-appointed, conservative-leaning court and it was upheld.

3 1/2 years later the Repubtards are still crying the blues and instead of drafting anything as an alternative, legislating anything that might actually help the American people, accomplishing anything, they have found their niche. Obstruction, "just say no," and disenfranchising the voting public is their claim to notoriety.


Actually Hillary had the framework done years ago which was probably modelled under what Ted Kennedy envisioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In the infamous words of Vice President Dick Cheney:

"Deficits don't matter."

Think about this: How do we EVER pay off the Debt if the moment we take in enough in taxes to start paying it off, Republicans use it as an excuse for tax cuts?


I do not like Bush, stupid Iraq war, but he did inherit an economy that was just getting out of a recession at the end of Clinton's second term. Then 9/11 happen so a shock hit the market and liberals tend to forget that Clinton borrowed money internally which allowed for a 'surplus' (shady accounting in my opinion). There was not one time that our debt went down during Clinton's presidency. The last president that actually decreased the debt was Einsenhower and that was only for a brief moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I do not like Bush, stupid Iraq war, but he did inherit an economy that was just getting out of a recession at the end of Clinton's second term. Then 9/11 happen so a shock hit the market and liberals tend to forget that Clinton borrowed money internally which allowed for a 'surplus' (shady accounting in my opinion). There was not one time that our debt went down during Clinton's presidency. The last president that actually decreased the debt was Einsenhower and that was only for a brief moment.

 

9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the downfall of the economy under the Bush Presidency. 9/11 provided a short lived shock to the world-wide market, but nothing long term and it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse/reason for the floundering economy since. That's nothing but correlative argument and it's absolutely in error. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wonder how many people on this board thinks FDR got the United States out of the depression in the 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the downfall of the economy under the Bush Presidency. 9/11 provided a short lived shock to the world-wide market, but nothing long term and it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse/reason for the floundering economy since. That's nothing but correlative argument and it's absolutely in error.


Maybe but it was a back to back hit to a stuggling economy due the false tech bubble. You discounted the confidence of the economy during 9/11. Interest rates were played with to get the economy going again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Actually Hillary had the framework done years ago which was probably modelled under what Ted Kennedy envisioned.

 

Wrong.

 

The ACA was originally devised by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

 

James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/

 

 

 

Here is Newt and Mitt discussing it further at a Republican debate:

 

This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

 

 

Here is another witness to the fact that the GOP was for the Affordable Care Act long before President Obama was in the White House.

T

 

Taranto, writes that he was there when the Heritage Foundation was promoting the mandate:  

 

"Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

 

Read more here in the original Forbes article (you know that famous bastion of liberal causes).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You just Gingriched me Hahahaha no comment. I think moon stations for our citizens are near in our future smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites