Azelma wrote:
I mean Jubber, you do realize that all the GOP did was strengthen the Democrats (and Obama's) position right? Everyone knew it wasn't going to work, but Boner (that's his name right?
) and his buddies thought they could win by holding a gun to the head of the government and, to a certain extent, world.
And for what...because of Obamacare? Really?
Yes, really, the ACA is going to seriously fuckerize people if it hasn't already. There were a lot of people that wanted to sit this out and forget about it until republicans won some more elections. They figured if it was a fucking train wreck, that would be good for them and/or the republican party. So why bother trying to fight it when it would be to your advantage to just let the shit hit the fan? It's because the ACA is going to do real harm to people, despite the fact that it's supposed to help people.
Azelma wrote:
The debt ceiling...budget negotiations...that's a big deal.
Yeah, they're a big deal, just not a big enough deal to encourage senate democrats to pass a budget, probably so that we can have a "crisis" every few months and they can do their sky-is-falling bullshit.
Azelma wrote:
Obamacare? No, the GOP just doesn't want healthcare paying for birth control for sluts or whatever. It's beyond asinine.
The "birth control for sluts" isn't even the biggest problem with the law, and most healthcare coverage paid for it before the ACA (unless you worked for a religious group of some type). What's beyond asinine is that every time republicans do something some of you don't like, you throw the scarecrow up in the cornfield and complain about the most fringe arguments you can find while ignoring the arguments that are actually relevant.
Azelma wrote:
The Republican party is so fractured it's ridiculous. Instead of throwing temper tantrums and trying to negotiate on things that have already been negotiated on (again: the Obamacare bill itself was bastardized repeatedly before it ever was voted in), they want to defund the whole thing and shut the government down with fiscal crisis looming.
I keep hearing this "fractured party" bullshit, and it's garbage. The party isn't fractured, and the "Tea Party" isn't a fringe group within the party...it's practically the entire party.
A study released this month by a group formed by James Carville found that the bulk of the Republican base is made up of Evangelical Christians and libertarian leaning Tea Partiers while
moderate centrists make up only a small minority within the party. If there's anyone in the party that needs to go, it's guys like McCain and McConnell that are always playing to the press instead of representing the party or, more importantly, the people that turned out to vote for them. I think the old Reagan-era phrase was "even a bad republican in office is better than a democrat," but after the last few weeks that hasn't proven to be true.
Azelma wrote:
Source?
I should do the ol' LMGTFY, but instead:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-default/http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/16/raisi ... -has-nothihttp://www.nationalreview.com/feed/3607 ... -pollowitzMns wrote:
He's talking about that we can pay off our interest on our debt, which is only a fraction of the debt ceiling. While true, its an amazingly toxic talking point brought up by the Limbaugh crowd. If we didn't raise the debt ceiling and chose to pay off the interests on our debts, we'd see a massive hemorrhaging of government spending and services since there would be almost zero money for anything after paying said interest. Imagine something that would make the shutdown look like a minuscule budget cut. Payments from projects like Social Security, SNAP, and Unemployment would either be drastically cut or stop sending out money if this period. If said programs get cut for a month or two, we'd start hearing stories about old people choosing between living homeless or dying while choosing housing over medicine and food riots would probably become normal occurrences in places with high poverty. The economies of entire areas like NoVa, which depend heavily on the government through direct jobs or contracts, would collapse and after the shutdown, we'd probably have scientists fleeing the country in droves, never to return.
Some of those things would have to happen, no argument from me on that, but if you think anyone, democrat or republican would fuck with the most reliable voting blocks Social Security checks, you're out of your mind. Less than 20% of the government was down for this so-called 'shutdown,' and the world didn't end, and it wouldn't if the government stopped borrowing money and lived within its means because congress didn't give itself a bigger credit line.
Mns wrote:
Or, you know, the endgame of libertarianism: a government so small you could "drown in a bathtub".
I'll settle for the bathtub, or even a wading pool, but I'd prefer if we could drown it in a bucket. Government is a necessary evil. Someone or something has to play referee in disputes, protect the country and its citizens, build roads and bridges, print money, and otherwise keep the peace. That someone or something doesn't need to be a sprawling, nearly unaccountable mess with its dirty fingers in every pie.
Your Pal,
Jubber
