Going over the Cliff

[robkelk]

What i was saying is that when you have a Lower house that disagrees with both the upper house and the Executive branch as a whole it can be a good thing, in fact that it is there as a check to ballance the power of the other two. Remove that check because it refuses to kow tow to the other two and you start down a slope to totalitarianism.

A House that refuses to allow the Senate or the executive to do anything other than what a few people in the House want is just as much a tyranny.

Tell me how well it works in Canada and Britain when the people who can afford it are coming to the US to have their operations done and those that cant suffer until the next budgetary year allows the hospitals to actually afford to do things for them.

As they say on Wikipedia, "Citation Needed".

I've asked for proof of this in the past, and never received any.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

Now that i have that out of my system, Ordinance i've been trying to
find a way to phrase my answer to the Talladega head start issue that
didnt make me seem like a heartless son of bitch, unfortunately i've
failed. Question for those parents and single mothers; Since your kid
had to be three to go into head start, WHAT DID YOU DO BEFORE THEN? and
for the program itself, get other funding, ask for the local churches to
make donations, local businesses as well, Talladega Raceway is great
about making donations for programs like that, dont base your entire
budget on a government largess that might have to GO AWAY.

Leaving aside the cold heartless comment, you're falling into a fallacy most people have. You're making the assumption, churches, charitable organizations, et al. will pick up the slack, and they have unlimited money to do so. Right now, charitable contributions had fallen way off since the Great Recession. And the need is just as great right now as during the Great Recession.   So basing it on private charities, that would just as hard hit by economic conditions would make the situation worse, not better.
And the HeadStart program I would not call government largess. I call it an important program to keep the working poor out of welfare. Because if these folks are not helped in this fashion, that is what they are going to be. On welfare. And now you're spending more money on them than you would have if you had HeadStart. Talledaga County isn't precisely rolling in rich folks who gladly tithe their incomes to the charities either. I should know, since I am familiar with that area. The biggest city in the area is Anniston, Al., in the next county over. That city's biggest employer is the federal government. And if the federal budget had been made on a clean resolution that it would not have to go away.
Raivik, I keep thinking you would have been happy during the Gilded Age.  But I would recommend works by Upton Sinclair and other muckrakers of that era to show just how bad working conditions were in those times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckracker ... heir_works
And if you think those conditions won't come back, I didn't think indentured servitude no longer existed in this country either. But there was a case in Louisiana involving Filipino teachers recently that is just that:
 http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Corporate-Gr ... t-Decision
 
 
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

You know, guys... I can respect the fact that the GOP in the House has submitted several revisions of the budget... But the one problem they keep running into time and time again is that they keep trying to screw around with the ACA's funding. I kid thee not, it's like some kid sticking their hand into the cookie jar only to get their hand thwacked by an uncannily observant mother.

Now, if the House can submit a budget that leaves the ACA's funding intact... Well, maybe we'll get somewhere.

And please don't argue that the Democrats aren't willing to compromise. They're willing to cut deals... just not on the ACA's funding.

Oh... and if the ACA is so horribly flawed... then for crying out loud, fix it instead of trying to kill it. You might actually get somewhere with that instead!

[Foxboy]

But BA? That would be helping Obama, don'tcha know? Tea Party can't do that.

*hack cough* Sorry, my sarcasm limit's been reached.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[robkelk]

They may had to shut down the server, since they can't pay the electric bill now.

I'd believe that if there weren't other government websites that merely put a disclaimer up instead of being shut off.

For example:

Note the word "updated", not "left up".
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

Actually BA, the main fear is that if it works well enough, there goes the political middle from the GOP. Have to remember that the exchanges was based on the Heritage Foundation ( a conservative think tank) idea as an alternative to a government run system. And I don't hear anyone from Massachusetts decrying their program either. Actually this is a good time of an experiment. Texas and the rest of the southern states ( which only has a bare bones program since they balked at implementing it). vs states which have whole heartedly implemented it, like California and Mass. Let's see in 2016 the results.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

Edit to fix a name.  :p
Really, the GOP stuck their foot into the whole morass when they decided they were going to fight Obama tooth and nail over the ACA. In doing so, they've lost quite a bit of ground with the lower- and middle-classes.

If anyone needs me sometime around 2016, I'll be sitting here in Texas watching Greg Abbott try to cover Wendy Davis with vitriol... I wonder if I should start practicing the fiddle again, because this is going to be very much like watching Rome burn.

[ordnance11]

Foxboy wrote:

---

But BA? That would be helping Obama, don'tcha know? Tea Party can't do that.

*hack cough* Sorry, my sarcasm limit's been reached.

He can't be re-elected so no help there. But his successor? Not to mention the Democratic party as a whole? Let's face it, the GOP has been doubling down on a losing streak at the national level. And I suspect a part of the problem is their success in 2009 followed by the redistricting gave them, them an  opportunity to give them "safe" districts. And that gave them an opportunity to pursue ideological pursuits such as "intelligent design", abortion, and voter ID restriction (or voter suppression). It also threatened the RINO's and squishes . It'll work on the local and maybe the the state level. Nationally?  It won't get them the independents. And 2016 is not that far away and if the GOP can't make any headway into 2020, when the next re-districting happens?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Dartz]

The true obscenity in the American healthcare system is that you spend twice as much per-capita as Canada - and a far larger share of GDP - on health for a system that is clearly crufty and inferior for a great many people. I've been trying to avoid that issue and the various merits of the ACA partly because It's somebody elses problem. A lot of the criticism reminds me of something that happened with car insurance here recently - where providers were forbidden from taking gender into account. You can guess what happened next....

Ultimately, all healthcare systems will have their failings. There is no perfect solution. With all systems there's ultimately a limited amount of care resources that's available - a finite number of doctors, nurses and beds. All that changes is the method of allocation. The Public system is excellent for things that will kill you soon and chronic conditions- like cancer or a serious heart condition. They go straight to the front of the queue. It falls down on some of the more elective procedures or quality of life related

There's always a filter. With private systems, it's ultimately a matter of whether you can pay (Or your insurance company is willing to pay for you). With public, it's a matter of who's in the most danger and how do we keep them from dying or going to pieces.

People in the UK do bitch about the NHS - but nobody seriously considers dismantling it in favour of privatised system because - for the majority of cases at least - the outcomes are better. One fact that might also surprise you is that there are private healthcare operations in the UK. And they advertise themselves as being able to offer a better standard of care than the public system - especially for more elective surgery or 'comfort' issues. Many people in the UK will have insurance - and the insurance providers have to work for their cash because going uninsured is a viable alternative. There are more procedures available in the US because the market is about ten times larger. A single specialist or specialised machine in an obscure surgery is more likely to be in the States simply because there will be more people in the States who will be requiring that surgery - and so would justify the expense of hiring/teaching/retaining that specialised and their hardware.

I do have insurance. It's 700 annually - and worth it because it covers travel to foreign countries better than travel insurance- among other things. Our system is a bit different to the UK - there's less offered publicly for a start simply. My Uncle was shafted by his insurance utterly because the person who sold it to him made a mistake on the form - and they didn't notice it until he took seriously ill - at which point they dropped him like a stone (Yes, I can throw anecdotes around too). He spent the next few months in a regional hospital where they did goddamned everything available to keep him alive anyway - including a month in intensive care. There was a bill - but it was substantially less than if the whole cost had had to be paid for out of pocket. And because of that, someone's knee surgery or hip-replacement was delayed. There was only (Figuratively) one bed, and it went to the person who would die without it, as opposed to the person who'd be in some discomfort for a few more weeks.

Ultimately, it's a case of swings and roundabouts. Anecdotes can swing it in either way and there will always be negatives for any system. I prefer a Government run system because - in theory - I can control the Government. I have no control over a private corporation beyond whether I buy from them, or their competitor (Unless it's a monopoly in which case I'm fucked). But I can tell the Government what to do. f there's a problem with hospital, or a grievance with the system and how it allocates healthcare resources or otherwise functions I'd like addressed, I can write a letter to my representative - along with any number of like-minded individuals - and in theory they will act upon that letter. Especially if there's enough of them.

I have, to be honest, had some success in this matter. I was surprised to find that a question I asked of my representative, was taken all the way to a the minister, and I received an informative response along with links to documents that showed how my query was already being addressed and that they were accepting submission from the public on the matter. I supposed I'm fortunate to have a TD who actually tries to take the public servant thing truthfully and will stick to his guns enough to resign from his party.

But. having the Government throw its toys out of the pram and refuse to take part - on the other hand - is ridiculous. That's not how Governments are supposed to work. Anywhere else, the system as written would have a mechanism either to force a resolution, or force an election to effectively put it to the people and ask them who they think is right. And there'd still be enough there to bridge the gap and keep the lights on. Pretty much every other democracy on the face of planet Earth has mechanisms in place to prevent exactly this sort of system lockup - usually by forcing a reboot instead of waiting and watching the beachball spin.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ordnance11]

blackaeronaut wrote:

---

Edit to fix a name.  :p
Really, the GOP stuck their foot into the whole morass when they decided they were going to fight Obama tooth and nail over the ACA. In doing so, they've lost quite a bit of ground with the lower- and middle-classes.

If anyone needs me sometime around 2016, I'll be sitting here in Texas watching Greg Abbott try to cover Wendy Davis with vitriol... I wonder if I should start practicing the fiddle again, because this is going to be very much like watching Rome burn.

I wouldn't be too smug yet, BA. The GOP sewed up those districts into "safe" ones. Not to mention the GOP practicing the voter suppression tactic. But I do say, as political theater, Texas puts on quite a show. Now, I suspect that Mr. Cruz will make a run for the big house himself in 2016. My question is whether the birthers like Donald Trump will rage against Cruz or not.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rajvik]

blackaeronaut wrote:

---

You know, guys... I can respect the fact that the GOP in the House has submitted several revisions of the budget... But the one problem they keep running into time and time again is that they keep trying to screw around with the ACA's funding. I kid thee not, it's like some kid sticking their hand into the cookie jar only to get their hand thwacked by an uncannily observant mother.

Now, if the House can submit a budget that leaves the ACA's funding intact... Well, maybe we'll get somewhere.

And please don't argue that the Democrats aren't willing to compromise. They're willing to cut deals... just not on the ACA's funding.

Oh... and if the ACA is so horribly flawed... then for crying out loud, fix it instead of trying to kill it. You might actually get somewhere with that instead!

the thing is they have, all they asked with the last CR before the shutdown was a delay in implimentation, the same one year delay that Obama by fiat gave to employers
And the problem wih the ACA is that it is SO horribly flawed that it cant be fixed, it was built to fail in the first place and force everyone into the single payer system that the democrats wanted in the first place, I'll see if i cant over the weekend find the video clip where in the 08 election run up Obama promised a single payer system  
 

[Dartz]

blackaeronaut wrote:You know, guys... I can respect the fact that the GOP in the House has submitted several revisions of the budget... But the one problem they keep running into time and time again is that they keep trying to screw around with the ACA's funding. I kid thee not, it's like some kid sticking their hand into the cookie jar only to get their hand thwacked by an uncannily observant mother.

Now, if the House can submit a budget that leaves the ACA's funding intact... Well, maybe we'll get somewhere.

And please don't argue that the Democrats aren't willing to compromise. They're willing to cut deals... just not on the ACA's funding.

Oh... and if the ACA is so horribly flawed... then for crying out loud, fix it instead of trying to kill it. You might actually get somewhere with that instead!

the thing is they have, all they asked with the last CR before the shutdown was a delay in implimentation, the same one year delay that Obama by fiat gave to employers

And the problem wih the ACA is that it is SO horribly flawed that it cant be fixed, it was built to fail in the first place and force everyone into the single payer system that the democrats wanted in the first place, I'll see if i cant over the weekend find the video clip where in the 08 election run up Obama promised a single payer system
  

You're mistaking 'built to fail' with 'built to be something everyone agrees on'. Fair enough, they often have the same result.

Something that is 15,000 pages long is rarely rammed through a legislature. The majority of those pages normally come about through the small demands members of that legislature demand to have made in order to ensure that they will vote for it EU treaties have the same problem - they're so verbose and complex in an attempt to add a clause that pleases everyone who needs to vote for it, or at least allows them to save face, that they just sort of metastise into a a legislative tumour just to reach a compromise that 'everyone' agrees on but ultimately ends up being something nobody is satisfied with.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ordnance11]

Something interesting:

*** “We have to get something out of this”: This is where Rep.
Marlin Stutzman’s (R-IN) amazing and revealing quote comes into play.
“We’re not going to be disrespected,” the Tea Party congressman said, per NBC's Frank Thorp.
“We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even
is.” Let that quote sink: Stutzman is admitting that conservatives don’t
even know what they want out of this fight. As we said yesterday, the
deeper a hole you did, the harder it is to get out because suddenly you
get this war mentality where you can’t fathom “surrendering” to the
other side’s terms. And what Boehner seems to be almost BEGGING
Democrats for is a fig leaf of something so that Republicans can get
“something” out of this. If there is a “something” that Democrats MIGHT
offer, keep an eye on the medical-device tax. It’s a way for Senate
Democrats to recruit Senate Republicans to make a statement to House
Republicans. Reid can say it is NOT connected to the shutdown, but they
pass it as a stand-alone, send it to the House, and let Boehner spin it
any way he wants to simply get the government open.

They got the fight, now what?
So the question is now is whether the Senator Reid gives them a fig leaf, so they all crow to their constituents that they'ved won..and encourage them to try it again next year?  The problem with this approach it does nothing to debt limit fight, since it becomes one fight now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ect-quote/
So there is a second reason for the Democrats not to cave: Principle. If the GOP get's it's way this time. What's not to prevent them  and the democrats from doing it the years after? Assume the situation is reversed in the future and Ted Cruz is president. Pelosi sends him a similar set of demands for funding the government. Any reason why it can't be done because the Tea Party set the precedent? Sauce for the goose and all that. Yes, there had been similar shutdowns..all 17 of them. But none of the shutdowns except the last prior one shutdown produced a closing of "non-essential" government services. So the Tea Party has their fight. The markets are tanking. And no end game. This really must look weird to the outside world.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

Hmmmmm...

There's a spectrum of motivation for seeking public office. Very roughly, it runs from "wanting to serve the public" or "wanting to serve a particular part of the public" on one end and "wanting power to do something" or "wanting power for its own sake" on the other. (Many politicians start at the former end and end up at the latter end, alas.)

Ord's post indicates there are a few too many people in this fight who are at the "wanting power..." end of the spectrum.

Time to kick the bums out, IMHO.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Dartz]

Time to kick the bums out, IMHO.

HE'S MAKING TERRORIST THREATS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT!! HE HATES FREEDOM!! SEND IN THE DRONES!!one
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

Time to kick the bums out, IMHO.

That's how this whole mess started in the first place. As bad as the former way of doing things was, "earmarks and all that", at least it worked!
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[CattyNebulart]

blackaeronaut wrote:You know, guys... I can respect the fact that the GOP in the House has submitted several revisions of the budget... But the one problem they keep running into time and time again is that they keep trying to screw around with the ACA's funding. I kid thee not, it's like some kid sticking their hand into the cookie jar only to get their hand thwacked by an uncannily observant mother.

Now, if the House can submit a budget that leaves the ACA's funding intact... Well, maybe we'll get somewhere.

And please don't argue that the Democrats aren't willing to compromise. They're willing to cut deals... just not on the ACA's funding.

Oh... and if the ACA is so horribly flawed... then for crying out loud, fix it instead of trying to kill it. You might actually get somewhere with that instead!

the thing is they have, all they asked with the last CR before the shutdown was a delay in implimentation, the same one year delay that Obama by fiat gave to employers

And the problem wih the ACA is that it is SO horribly flawed that it cant be fixed, it was built to fail in the first place and force everyone into the single payer system that the democrats wanted in the first place, I'll see if i cant over the weekend find the video clip where in the 08 election run up Obama promised a single payer system
  

Single Payer would be a lot better yes... but that is a seperate problem, this is a 6 week CR, caving in to republican demands every 6 weeks.... it would make elections meaningless. The democrats can't compromise on this unless they want to adopt the teaparty platform lock stock and barrel. If the president doesn't veto any dismantling of the ACA he becomes just a figurehead, proven that he will cave... the republicans have neatly manoeuvred the democrats in a corner where they must fight. The republicans could back down but they would lose face, and likely their job.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[robkelk]

robkelk wrote:Time to kick the bums out, IMHO.

That's how this whole mess started in the first place. As bad as the former way of doing things was, "earmarks and all that", at least it worked!

I don't know - you've haven't kicked the bums out in the last few decades. You've only kicked the bums from one or the other party out.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

Here's an intriguing quote from a recent blog post ( http://www.pelicancrossing.net/netwars/ ... cuses.html ):

Many of my British friends are baffled as to why nationalized health insurance is such a contentious issue in the US. One answer is that it's about class: if health insurance is a perk of a "good job", having it provided proves you're a high achiever. A second, however, is that big employers know that losing access to health benefits is such a potent threat that it keeps employees in line. In other words, health insurance tied to employment has turned the American middle class into peasants. It is horrifyingly feudal - and some business interests are quite happy with that.

"The thing is," someone English said to me this week, "our government evolved. Yours was actually *designed* to work like this." That's not really quite true: no one intended to design severe dysfunction.

--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

ordnance11 wrote:

---

robkelk wrote:Time to kick the bums out, IMHO.

That's how this whole mess started in the first place. As bad as the former way of doing things was, "earmarks and all that", at least it worked!

I don't know - you've haven't kicked the bums out in the last few decades. You've only kicked the bums from one or the other party out.

Unfortunately, we do not multiple parties of the type you have in Canada and elsewhere. Yes, there are other parties, but not with the national reach of the GOP and the Democrats. The last man to attempt a national 3rd party is Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

Well, at least some good news: Federal workers get back pay.
So instead of of an enforced unpaid vacation, it becomes an enforced vacation.
Still not happy: Those cases of mine aren't going to write themselves while I'm away from the office.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rajvik]

ordnance11 wrote:

---

Raivik, I keep thinking you would have been happy during the Gilded Age.  But I would recommend works by Upton Sinclair and other muckrakers of that era to show just how bad working conditions were in those times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckracker ... heir_works
And if you think those conditions won't come back, I didn't think indentured servitude no longer existed in this country either. But there was a case in Louisiana involving Filipino teachers recently that is just that:
 http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Corporate-Gr ... t-Decision
 
 

Actually Ord, I'm a history major working also on a double minor in Poli-sci and Economics and I believe I have read Sinclair once upon a time. Do i think that it CAN'T come back, no. Humanity seems doomed to repeat their failures of history over and over again. the thing is is that i feel, and I state this as my opinion, that government, and more government is not the answer. Some government is needed, but when your beuracracy gets so bloated that the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing, then it has gone to far.
  
 

[ECSNorway]

I'm going to buck the Republican trend here and say what I think: Unions Are Not Evil By Nature.

They are in fact a necessary and good thing. They are the primary check and balance against the power and potential oppression of management.

The PROBLEM with Unions today is that they're TOO powerful. They've tipped the balance too far the other way.

Example: People complain that US-made cars are crap. This is at least partially because the labor cost for Union workers is high, and in order to compete with lower-labor-cost non-union companies, GM and their ilk have to cut corners elsewhere.

High Union wages are the single basic reason behind the general inflation and increases in cost of living everywhere, but especially in the big cities like NYC, Detroit, Chicago, and their ilk. The more people are paid, the more money is in circulation, the more prices get raised to pick it up and cover their own labor costs.

Example: Look up for yourself, sometime, when the unions finally allowed American railroad companies to stop posting a coal stoker... to every DIESEL locomotive. (Hint: It wasn't anywhere NEAR when diesel locomotives were introduced.)

The other problem is that like any other organization with hierarchy and power and control of money, there's plenty of corruption to be had and plenty of attraction for organized crime. Some unions are honest and good... some are little more than collection agencies for the local mafia.

What we need is not to BREAK the unions. What we need is to BALANCE them against Management.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Bob Schroeck]

The problem is that "balance" is what's also called "moderation", and being moderate is anathema to both sides.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Rajvik]

You ask for citation, provided:

reference: San Jose Mercury News-http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world ... =inthenews

And this, expanded to the entirety of the nation, is why the Republicans, or at least the conservatives are willing to go to the mat to either delay or defund the ACA (Obamacare)

570k of 1.9milion, thats a little less than a quarter who are going to be subsidized by the rest of the state, and thats just those who actually buy insurance themselves now. What is it going to look like when the individual Mandate kicks in and you HAVE to buy the insurance. In all honestly they wont, they'll pay the fine and get the covered medical care and screw the systeme worse than it is now.