Government shutdown begins as neither side agree to a spending compromise

[Cobber]

I say it was bound to happen sooner or later.

 

[Cobber]

1996 Clinton
1013 Obama

...

Seems like Democrats are just not working out in office.
Not saying that the Republicans are doing any better... but still.
...
If only we had another Reagan.
Don't hate.

 

[Kanzler]

What did Reagan do that was so significant? You know that he was working between financial crises, and that he was working deficits - and above average at that (between 1971 to 2010) - that were only corrected under Clinton?

If we had another Reagan, we'd have someone who'd continue the high spending. He might've cut taxes, but spending was also high and that's what Republicans say we shouldn't be doing right now. Clinton had similar GDP growth rates as Reagan (~4%) yet he went for surplus budgets instead of deficits.

 

[Netto Azure]

I'm waiting for when we fail to raise the debt ceiling. Oh boy oh boy oh boy, that will be fun.

Remember this Government Shutdown is peanuts compared to the Debt Ceiling stupidity circus in 2 weeks. I personally just want Obama to invoke Section 4 of the US 14th Amendment already.

I could literally see from my investment chart that the Bond and Stock Markets crashed during the Debt Ceiling fiasco back in 2011.

We're going to have another Financial crisis and Great Recession ALA 2008 when the Debt Ceiling fight happens in October 15.

 

[Esper]

I get that ACA/Obamacare isn't popular with some people, but since when is it okay to stop the government or threaten revolt when you don't like something? I don't like what House Republicans are doing, should I tell my representative to stall all action to shut the government down? Should I threaten to revolt?

The thing that really got to me was when Republicans started asking for everything they want in exchange for not shutting the government down. They demanded Keystone pipeline, an end to net neutrality, no more carbon emissions regulation, more offshore drilling, and a dozen other things. I don't care if they think some of these things are bad and some are good. This is a democracy. One side doesn't get everything it wants all the time. Is net neutrality hurting the American people that badly?

Well, fine. Here is a counter-offer: I want to see gay-marriage legalized in all 50 states. Republicans, you can have all that stuff you want if you'll legalize gay marriage. But you know they would never agree even to that terribly unbalanced deal.

 

[Rezilia]

What did Reagan do that was so significant? You know that he was working between financial crises, and that he was working deficits - and above average at that (between 1971 to 2010) - that were only corrected under Clinton?

If we had another Reagan, we'd have someone who'd continue the high spending. He might've cut taxes, but spending was also high and that's what Republicans say we shouldn't be doing right now. Clinton had similar GDP growth rates as Reagan (~4%) yet he went for surplus budgets instead of deficits.

I will quote this for you, it's by Reagan:

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the People.' 'We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the People' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years.

But back in the 1960's, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things -- that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, 'Stop.' I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do."


He reduced taxes on people, made sure the people had full choice in what they wanted to do, and 19 million people got jobs again. THAT is what Reagan did.



The government is now doing the opposite. Obamacare, by order of the President, MUST be attained by every American within the next few years. Evidence has shown that, despite it covering EVERY American, EVERYONE that has it must pay MORE than they did before. Logically, this makes no sense. Obamacare and plans like it strip away the People's ability to make their own choices and do their own thing. Reagan is pretty much Obama's opposite yet, while Reagan wanted to help all of the people (which SHOULD have been something Democrats were to do), Obama only cares about the federal government's income and agenda (which SHOULD be something stereotypical of Republicans).


While Obamacare covers all these girls that get themselves knocked up and DON'T work, just get money for being single jobless mothers, Obamacare also has taken away tons of retirement funds from the elderly and raising THEIR medical costs. You said certain meds got cheaper, well which ones? Because I'm telling you those meds only got cheaper in return for OTHER meds getting more expensive.


The Republicans are trying to DESTROY the Fed Govt's ability to function. That way, all these laws that force the people to do certain things won't have any effect and those that aren't in the government will be able to affect the government in greater ways than ever before.


Republicans and Democrats have, throughout time, often switched the things they represented and moved from left-wing to right-wing and on and on - each of them have done this. It's wrong to stereotype Republicans as money grubbers just like how Democrats are no longer hippies. The fed govt has, throughout time, been abused and controlled by various people and, because of this, it has hurt far more than helped.


Let me give an example. Leon Czolgosz, having been ruined by the decisions of the government in his lifetime, assassinated the president at the time. The following is quoted from an article:


'Seeing that the mob on Czolgosz might easily and quickly kill him, President McKinley whispered either, "Don't let them hurt him" or "Go easy on him, boys."


...


Czolgosz readily admitted that he was the one who had shot the President. In his written confession, Czolgosz stated, "I killed President McKinley because I done my duty. I didn't believe one man should have so much service and another man should have none."'


Neither of them, the assassin or the president, were to blame. They both believed this. I believe, the moment they looked each other in the eye, they understood how they'd both been played. There is something very wrong with our government. Many people are seeing that. The majority suffer and those that try to stop the suffering do all they can to alleviate it, even if that means being seen as the enemy of the public. There is a problem with the way our government works. The shutdown is our opportunity to fix it.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well, fine. Here is a counter-offer: I want to see gay-marriage legalized in all 50 states. Republicans, you can have all that stuff you want if you'll legalize gay marriage. But you know they would never agree even to that terribly unbalanced deal.

If we're going to play blackmail and hostage politics starting today, here is a short and old list of things the Democrats must insist on in any future negotiations with the Republicans:

1. Expand Medicare to all Americans.
2. Repeal the law setting a debt ceiling.
3. Raise the federal income tax rate for incomes over a million to 80%.
4. Repeal the law which prevents Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices.
5. Repeal the law which prevents victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers for damages.
6. Repeal the Second Amendment.
7. Pass real Immigration Reform
8. Pass a Carbon Tax on GHG emissions.

This just goes to show how far off the Republican's have gotten with their ransom notes and demands.

 

[Rezilia]

5. Repeal the law which prevents victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers for damages.
6. Repeal the Second Amendment.
7. Pass real Immigration Reform

Okay, hold on, what?

Now, the other stuff...I agree with. But this? No. Why should a victim sue a gun manufacturer for what the GUN OWNER did? That's like suing McDonald's just because you're too stupid to realize that coffee is hot... OH WAIT A MINUTE THERE!

The Second Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves, period. The government already had no right to take away our actually-usable-in-a-fight-knives and battleaxes... Now you want them to take away THE ONLY THING WE CAN DEFEND OURSELVES WITH LEGALLY? No. That's not the problem here. The problem is that gun sellers aren't required to give documentation of proof that they sold guns to people with a license. Repealing the Second Amendment is NOT the answer to the problem.

And what do you mean, "Pass real Immigration Reform"? The Republicans are the ones that want that! The Democrats are all like, "Hey, you want to be American? Well here's some Obamacare for you!"

 

[Sir Codin]

I love how this topic devolved into pointing fingers and making demands of one party in exchange for something. This is exactly why I love watching political discussions on a video game forum.

Also:

For tourists in Washington who are bummed out because the partial government shutdown has closed monuments and Smithsonian museums, feel free to visit Mount Vernon, Gunston Hall, the National Museum of Women in the Arts, the Corcoran Gallery, the Phillips Collection, the Woodrow Wilson House, the National Museum of Jewish Military History, or the International Spy Museum. All are privately owned, hence they are open for business. (So, for that matter, are Monticello, Montpelier, and Ash Lawn-Highland, if you want to head towards Charlottesville.)

 

[Silais]

Please read this article if you want to know how much the Affordable Healthcare Act will actually cost you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/obamacare-premiums_n_3984979.html

 

[Rezilia]

Please read this article if you want to know how much the Affordable Healthcare Act will actually cost you.

Hmmm...

That's WAY different from Obamacare. I'm fine with it if 1) Obamacare is completely eradicated and all the things it did WRONG are fixed so that no one has to worry when AHA comes out and 2) it's optional.

Honestly, my largest problem - as was shown in my posts - is the fact that Obamacare was REQUIRED. If AHA is REQUIRED, such a thing goes against the people's liberty and that is wrong. Just like forcing kids to waste 13 or so years of their life to learn the truth as is force fed to them...is wrong because it goes against their liberty. Forcing someone to pay or do something, esp. if they have a better alternative, is WRONG.

 

[Sir Codin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zo-jgXL-XIQ

Found a fun little video on the situation.

"Since 1976, there have been 17 different government shutdowns. The longest came in 1995-1996 and lasted 21 days, as Bill Clinton wrangled with congressional Republicans over budget matters. But there were six shutdowns in the 1970s, all lasting longer than eight days, and there was a one-day shutdown in 1982 when Congress couldn't agree on funding for Nicaraguan Contras."

 

[Trev]

Jesus America get this **** together already. I don't understand why it's so hard for people just to reach a compromise. Seriously? A government shutdown just because no one can agree on something so trivial? It's not rocket science; just offer the healthcare to everyone and let those who want it, take it. This issue is so ridiculous and the fact that it's escalated to this is absolutely stupefying. The government has spent entirely too long on this.

*flies to Norway forever*

 

[Livewire]

Reagan, who spent billions on a bloated defense budget, many of those billions went to funding the Contras and Iran in the form of arms, (google it, it's great) and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Like, the same Mujahadeen who eventually used all that black-budget money and those American weapons to kill American troops a few decades later. Bin Laden was a Mujahadeen. Figure it out. It's easy to look good spending a ton on military expenses tp puff up the economy. And notice how we paid for it in the early-mid 90's. So when you say Reagan was 'better' economically than Clinton's gigantic budget surplus or Obama's revived American auto industry and/or greatly recovered economy, go read a history book and get back at me.

You are so, so wrong and you don't even know it...

I watched all of the debates between Obama and Romney. Every time I was getting ready for the debate, I knew exactly what Obama would say. It's the same thing he's said every time in response to everything that goes wrong, regardless of whatever that may be: "The Republicans are stopping us."

That's complete BS. The Democrats are the ones blaming the Republicans for everything. The Republicans have been working their butts off trying to take away Obama's plan because IT HAS ONLY FAILED. Obama just wants to have his name in the books for something, even if it means causing the nation to fail.

On what planet do you spend most of your time?

So the worst rated congress in United States History got that way for standing up for the American people, for the common man? Gotcha.

Or because it's the truth. Filibustered even the most routine congressional appointments, to the point where there was a federal emergency because the GOP wouldn't allow all those appointments to do their very important jobs, pretty funny for a party all about jobs. Blocked or killed legislation designed to curb gun violence and to institute basic, common sense background checks and gun control measures, which 90% of the American public wanted. Voted forty times to repeal the ACA, all of which failed and wasted congressional time and taypayer money. Jobs bills passed in that time frame? None. Invasive abortions laws passed in that time, plenty. Funny, for the party that rages against government invasions into private life. ACA actually works, and provides affordable healthcare options to nearly 50 million citizens, who undoubtedly would give their political allegiances to Obama and the Dems. They (Boner and the GOP) realized the ground giving way under their feet and took to every possible measure to see Obama's landmark legislation fail. It's all purely political. If Freeza let Goku charge up the Spirit Bomb to full power, it wouldn't be much of a fight, Freeza would be doomed. Great analogy, actually.

So when you say that Obama and the Democrats are are to blame for Tea Party fundamentalism and John Boehner's spineless catering to those extremists and unwillingness to compromise even a bit, you pretty much demonstrated a complete and utter lack of understanding of the last five years of American politics.

 

[Kanzler]

He reduced taxes on people, made sure the people had full choice in what they wanted to do, and 19 million people got jobs again. THAT is what Reagan did.

You know he started ramped up the War on Drugs? He introduced a large amount of mandatory minimum sentences and other severe penalties for drug offences, as well as submitting disproportionate legislation for crack and powder cocaine (like there's a difference lol) which is part of the reason why black people don't like him.

He cut taxes, sure. He also spent the crap out of the public purse and left Clinton with the bills and the tax hikes. It's easy to praise somebody who reduces taxes, but he unbalanced the books. As for people getting jobs, that's kind of what happens when you get out of a recession. Unemployment reached 10.8% during his term. That's higher than it has been throughout this entire current financial crisis under Obama.

He'd created 19 million jobs, but he "lost" much of that in the first place. Now you say that his economic policies brought jobs back. It also contributed to inequality in America. It was low during the beginning of his presidency. Throughout both terms, and ever since, it's grown:

Also, the tax reduction part isn't even completely true. He cut taxes in the beginning of his term. He ended up raising half of it back at the end. It makes him look good, and it makes you forget. Reagan did that too.

The government is now doing the opposite. Obamacare, by order of the President, MUST be attained by every American within the next few years. Evidence has shown that, despite it covering EVERY American, EVERYONE that has it must pay MORE than they did before. Logically, this makes no sense. Obamacare and plans like it strip away the People's ability to make their own choices and do their own thing. Reagan is pretty much Obama's opposite yet, while Reagan wanted to help all of the people (which SHOULD have been something Democrats were to do), Obama only cares about the federal government's income and agenda (which SHOULD be something stereotypical of Republicans).

By order of the President? Um... the President signs bills into laws? and it passed through the House and the Senate votes first? And everybody's forced to buy insurance, otherwise people would buy it only when they're sick, and that would be cheating the system. Insurance is about diffusing risk, spreading it among as many people as possible. Otherwise nobody will pay, yet everybody will demand compensation from insurance. So logically, it makes every sense. Yes, Obamacare should take away people's "right" to make the choice of buying insurance only when it conveniences them. It's health insurance for the people. Beforehand, insurance companies can deny you insurance because they don't want to pay for your health costs if they don't think you're worth your premiums. Socialized insurance has no right to say no to you. Isn't that reason and equality?

While Obamacare covers all these girls that get themselves knocked up and DON'T work, just get money for being single jobless mothers, Obamacare also has taken away tons of retirement funds from the elderly and raising THEIR medical costs. You said certain meds got cheaper, well which ones? Because I'm telling you those meds only got cheaper in return for OTHER meds getting more expensive.

For most people, insurance premiums do not rise. If a family earns below ~90k (depends on family members), they receive subsidies which take a big bite out of the premiums, especially if you're low income. And prices for medication goes up because pharmaceutical companies are worried about their profits. These are the same companies that are lobbying for intellectual property right legislation that seek to put generic drug producers in the developing world out of business, so they can sell their brand-name drugs at a premium. Is it the government's fault for not pandering to what the pharmaceutical companies would like?

There is a problem with the way our government works. The shutdown is our opportunity to fix it.

What does that even mean, an opportunity to fix it? It's not an opportunity for anything. It happens because a budget is not agreed upon, and therefore the President is not allowed to spend money on non-essential services. That's all it is, the President not getting a green light, cuz it's his job to spend money.

American politics is about freedom, but it's also about special interests and clientelism and rewards those who can get their voice heard. Are you one of those people? Go head to head with the agricultural industry or the pharmaceutical industry or the defense industry, then tell me if you still want to praise your "freedoms" so much. They're just slogans. The Chinese don't even shout slogans anymore, they've learned.

 

[Rezilia]

So when you say Reagan was 'better' economically than Clinton's gigantic budget surplus or Obama's revived American auto industry and/or greatly recovered economy, go read a history book and get back at me.

So the worst rated congress in United States History got that way for standing up for the American people, for the common man? Gotcha.

So when you say that Obama and the Democrats are are to blame for Tea Party fundamentalism and John Boehner's spineless catering to those extremists and unwillingness to compromise even a bit, you pretty much demonstrated a complete and utter lack of understanding of the last five years of American politics.

1) So you use a history book for your info, rather than the amazing and entirely globalized information age based miracle called the internet and its quadrillion or so URLs? Nice to know.

Reagan only spent money funding those things because he (and tons of other people before him that TOLD the U.S. govt. this and the govt. IGNORED them) knew Russia was bad and would only get worse. How bad? If we didn't do the Cold War, Russia still would have. And they would have covered everything we did but had it under their own influence. Was the U.S. right or Russia? Who cares? The problem was that we would have lost all political influence we had and Russia would be controlling the world right now instead of us - which, honestly, might have been better. But who knows.

2) LOL I never said they GOT that way for standing up for the people. They got that way out of personal interest. Standing up for a certain amount of people is only what they do when they need the support of those people. Trust me, I know neither the Republicans nor the Democrats actually care about the people. It's all a blame game to BOTH of them - it's just that the Republicans have far more experience in the issues that have currently caused the disaster we have right now which is why, atleast for this issue, I'm with them. Once this issue is over, I'll go right back to being against both parties and the government in general.

3) What? I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that the Democrats, trying to do their deeds in areas that they are NOT experts in, have made things worse. That's it. I don't blame Republicans or Democrats really, just this system we're in for allowing stupid and arrogant people to be in control of the entire nation.

--

@Blah

"Yes, Obamacare should take away people's "right" to make the choice of buying insurance only when it conveniences them."

Um, what, no. Do you even know what Liberty means? And don't say "freedom" so freely, because that's a terribly underexplained answer and you should feel bad about even thinking of answering with just that.

 

[Kanzler]

@Blah

"Yes, Obamacare should take away people's "right" to make the choice of buying insurance only when it conveniences them."

Um, what, no. Do you even know what Liberty means? And don't say "freedom" so freely, because that's a terribly underexplained answer and you should feel bad about even thinking of answering with just that.

I spent a good deal of time yesterday explaining to someone who cares a good way of presenting arguments. You provide a point, then some evidence, then explain how that evidence is relevant.

Point - "that's a terribly underexplained answer". There's no evidence, and no explanation of how that's relevant. Instead of doing that, you're telling me to feel bad for thinking something. Let me break this down. I'm sure you have the right to say whatever you like, but I also have the right to point out how it doesn't mean anything. So I don't see how I've underexplained anything, especially when there's an entire paragraph above and below it.

And everybody's forced to buy insurance, otherwise people would buy it only when they're sick, and that would be cheating the system. Insurance is about diffusing risk, spreading it among as many people as possible. Otherwise nobody will pay, yet everybody will demand compensation from insurance. So logically, it makes every sense. Yes, Obamacare should take away people's "right" to make the choice of buying insurance only when it conveniences them. It's health insurance for the people. Beforehand, insurance companies can deny you insurance because they don't want to pay for your health costs if they don't think you're worth your premiums. Socialized insurance has no right to say no to you. Isn't that reason and equality?

Forcing people to buy insurance combats the free rider problem. That occurs when somebody gains the benefits without paying the costs. It's what I referred to as cheating the system. Insurance payouts are funded by premiums. Obamacare doesn't deny you insurance, because that's the entire point - to provide coverage to people that would be disadvantaged by the current system of insurance companies looking for the healthiest individuals, so they can take your insurance and not have to pay anything. That's what an insurance scheme is, a bet. But your health is not, or should not be a bet, it's do or die. What happens when you have a system that's not going to deny you insurance (to be fair to EVERYONE) but you don't pay when you're healthy and only pay when you're sick? Then that system has no money to cover the healthcare for anybody because everybody decided to be happy with their "liberty".

What does liberty mean. Why should I feel bad for answering with "just that" when you've answered with, I dunno, much less?

 

[Livewire]

1) So you use a history book for your info, rather than the amazing and entirely globalized information age based miracle called the internet and its quadrillion or so URLs? Nice to know.

Reagan only spent money funding those things because he (and tons of other people before him that TOLD the U.S. govt. this and the govt. IGNORED them) knew Russia was bad and would only get worse. How bad? If we didn't do the Cold War, Russia still would have. And they would have covered everything we did but had it under their own influence. Was the U.S. right or Russia? Who cares? The problem was that we would have lost all political influence we had and Russia would be controlling the world right now instead of us - which, honestly, might have been better. But who knows.

2) LOL I never said they GOT that way for standing up for the people. They got that way out of personal interest. Standing up for a certain amount of people is only what they do when they need the support of those people. Trust me, I know neither the Republicans nor the Democrats actually care about the people. It's all a blame game to BOTH of them - it's just that the Republicans have far more experience in the issues that have currently caused the disaster we have right now which is why, atleast for this issue, I'm with them. Once this issue is over, I'll go right back to being against both parties and the government in general.

3) What? I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that the Democrats, trying to do their deeds in areas that they are NOT experts in, have made things worse. That's it. I don't blame Republicans or Democrats really, just this system we're in for allowing stupid and arrogant people to be in control of the entire nation.

--

I'm glad you take your time to post here instead of answer PMs. Nice to know the Super Mod title is well-deserved.

Firstly, lol. You act like the internet is infallible. Read a book for once.

1.5 So... there would still be a 'cold war' without the United States? The only reason there was even one to begin with was that the U.S & Russia were the sole remaining world powers after WWII, after Germany was utterly smashed and France and England's economies and resources were totally exhausted. So that assumption is false. Both had competing ideologies for the post-war world. And Soviet Russia, at no point in time, had the logistical or military might necessary to cover the world in the red flags of Bolshevism, so, no, again. And no to your assumption the world would be better off under communist rule. Look how effective the ones we had were. C'mon man.

it's just that the Republicans have far more experience in the issues that have currently caused the disaster we have right now

2. Right, because they caused them.

3. Thirdly, Democrats have much more experience in this particular area of legislation, given how many pieces of integral social reform are due to largely liberal/leftist/democratic ideologies, namely social security, medicare, medicaid, everything voting & civil rights affiliated, healthcare related, etc. So far, nothing is 'worse' now than it was in 2006-2008, economically speaking, aside from income inequality, which results from scaled back tax laws for corporations and lax oversight, basically Wall Street's fault. If you really believe we are worse off now in 2013 than we were during the height of the greatest financial collapse of the last seventy years, then I am embarrassed for you.

 

[Sir Codin]

Honestly, I'm glad this shutdown happened, even though I'm likely to be out of work. Why? Because I hope it'll be a real eye-opener as to how f*cked Congress really is, especially the Republican side. We need something like this to wake the sleeping giant of protest in this country, because as it stands, our current state of the government can't even support itself. The parties are not willing to work together and now one is holding the entire nation hostage because they didn't get their way, like petulant children holding up the lunch line just because they aren't serving pizza.

Look at this, Americans. This is your government. When the voting booths open up next year, I trust you'll make the right decision.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't know if voting can change it, unless you mean giving one party a clear mandate over another, so it can have easy majorities. Other than that, Congress would continue working as designed.