The government shutdown dictated that all “non-essential” services must be furloughed. The White House made the call that monuments are not essential, and thus couldn’t pay the staff required to keep them open. Which part of that reasoning do you find suspect?[quote=“docpsifi, post:59, topic:11225”]
If you noticed in my comment, I didn’t say he had to compromise on the ACA.
[/quote]
You said he “REFUSED” to compromise. Your choice of words and use of all caps seemed to imply that compromise is something a reasonable person in his situation would do.
7 Likes
As far as the memorials are concerned, your right that they are “non-essential” services but the the open air memorials do not require anyone to staff them so why are they closed??? On the compromise issue, all I’m saying is compromise is a give an take debate. A good politician should be developing a compromise that is best solution to solve the problem. The problem currently is all three groups (president, democrats, and republicans) do not seem to want to develop a compromise. This doesn’t mean that he has to give up ACA (it is capitalized because it is stands for the Affordable Care Act not because I was yelling, that was someone else). He needs to find common ground that the groups can agree on and build from there. Stating you will not compromise is a poor position to start from. All the groups are acting like spoiled kids not overpaid politicians.
A couple of months ago vandals [splattered the Lincoln Memorial with paint][1] when it was still fully staffed. Surely you can imagine a scenario where leaving all our national memorials open but unattended might lead to bad consequences?
[1]: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/26/vandals-splatter-lincoln-memorial-with-green-paint/[quote=“docpsifi, post:62, topic:11225”]
On the compromise issue, all I’m saying is compromise is a give an take debate.
[/quote]
But this isn’t the time for a debate. The debate already happened, compromises were already made, the rules were all followed, the resolution was reached, the law was subjected to legal scrutiny and passed. Everyone’s role is clear. Everyone’s duty is clear. A minority of legislators are steadfastly refusing to do their job while complaining that the other side won’t meet them halfway.
7 Likes
Let’s say I demanded BoingBoing change back to Discus.
If I don’t get it what I want, I’ll troll this site so much that we can’t have any reasonable discussion at all on any topic.
Is the proper response of the BoingBoing team to compromise, and, say, revert to Discus for a year while we consider the issue of whether the BBS system was a good idea? After which, I reserve the right to renew my threat to troll the site if they discuss going back to the BBS system? And even if I don’t, some other user who likes it might, having seen the tactic clearly works. If I have to put my trolling plan into motion, is BoingBoing acting like a spoiled child by not giving in to some of my demands?
The spoiled kids are the ones threatening to shut the whole system down if they don’t get their way. Any giving in to their demands is a WIN for them, because it’s something they couldn’t have gotten by the normal process, which doesn’t involve holding the whole government hostage.
Negotiating with people who take hostages only encourages people to take hostages in the future. IMHO, that’s how Obama should answer every question on the shutdown.
10 Likes
1 Like
People arguing that a Republican majority in the House proves something ( http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-newt-gingrichs-terrible-advice-about-the-federal-shutdown-20130930,0,5889140.story ) should note that the Democrats actually got more votes than the Republicans in the House elections: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/republicans-gerrymandering-house-representatives-election-chart and http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 . The Republican State Leadership Committee actually brags that the Republicans got a majority because of their efforts at changing the congressional district lines: http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/
8 Likes
You’re fantastic, man. Slavery is definitely just like health care. Well spotted.
But you’re the one who wants to make a special exception for this law. Repealing a law, just like making a law, has to go through the legislative process. Even repealing slavery! So I guess that health care is actually worse than slavery, that the nation must be held hostage when it turns out there’s just not enough majority to repeal it through the normal legislative process.
9 Likes
They should also note that in the 112th Congress (2011-2013) the GOP had a 49-seat majority (242 Republicans to 193 Democrats). After the 2012 elections, for the 113th Congress the GOP had a 33-seat majority (234 to 201) for a loss of 8 seats. That was with GOP redistricting efforts helping them, and they won’t get to do any more redrawing of district lines in 2014.
3 Likes
As satisfying as it might be, putting bracelets on a congressman would be a bad career move.
1 Like
Not to nitpick, but how is the ACA vote a compromise if it was completely along party lines?
That’s just as disingenuous a claim as Salgak calling HConRes 25 a bipartisan budget bill.
1 Like
Well, had it not been a compromise we’d have for instance the public option, an actual government-run health-care plan, as part of the ACA. That was in the bill as originally written, and was removed to appease the GOP who opposed it. That the GOP wouldn’t accept any compromise doesn’t mean that the Democrats and the President didn’t in fact compromise and give the GOP some of what they wanted. It just means the GOP wouldn’t accept anything short of getting it 100% their way. Which is kind of unreasonable considering that at the time the Democrats had control of both the House (256 to 178), the Senate (57 to 41) and the White House. All the GOP could’ve done was filibuster the bill in the Senate.
4 Likes
The thing I love best about living in Kansas (sarcasm) is when national news(?) programs like the Today show air the clip of the congressman being an ass to the park ranger, and then a furloughed worker calling his bluff – while the local news, KSN, only shows the section of the clip where the congressman berates the park ranger.
It almost feels like the Koch brothers run the news here, too.
4 Likes
Actually THINK about that. Doctors are going to be TOLD what they can charge, and will HAVE to accept it, even if it’s less than their cost of doing business.
Compelling one to labor without net compensation sounds a LOT like Slavery to me.
1 Like
I also note the the House is elected by individual districts, and NOT by the National Public Vote. By the way, that’s a FEATURE, not a BUG. . . .
Shoot, my sisters are both doctors. I’d better warn them that their enslavement is imminent! Maybe we can start some kind of underground railroad to a place without government-backed healthcare, like… uh… Sierra Leone?
6 Likes
Is gerrymandering a feature or a bug?
6 Likes
You know that happens already right? Insurance companies have been squeezing both sides from the middle- raising premiums and reducing what they will pay docs. They call them “negotiated” rates, but the only negotiation is take it or leave it- if you want to accept our insurance and treat our customers that’s what we’ll be paying.
Does that kind of “negotiation” sound a little familiar? Oh yeah, that’s the brick wall the GOP has been putting up as a general policy for the last five years.
5 Likes
It’s important to note that all of Salgak’s posts have been in this one thread.
New account, check. flame-baiting, check. I’d say turfer. And I just fed 'im too.
5 Likes
Most definitely a turfer. It’s just sad to see people jumping on him over and over again. No, yeah, sure, makes sense to have a discussion how fixed rates for basic health care services are just like slavery. That totally will lead somewhere productive. Pro Tip: If you read a comment and you’re thinking “He can’t possibly mean that if he has even half a brain”, he either really has only half a brain (so it doesn’t make sense to try to educate him) or he is paid to act as though he only has half a brain (so it super double doesn’t make sense to try to educate him).
Once again: There is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with those who either can’t or don’t want to understand basic facts. In this case, it’s pretty clear that he just wants to disrupt the discussion - and I would put my money on him being some think tank shill. It’s amazing to me that the Internet, after all these years, still hasn’t fully adopted measures like hellbanning across the board. Moderators should have the ability to swiftly cut off unproductive threads into side-tracks so that regular discussion can remain productive. And also mark those threads and the people who are hellbent on keeping them going with nonsense for hellbanning.
1 Like
How fortunate for the Rs that they have framed the debate such that, when they make outrageous, unreasonable demands which almost literally hold the United States hostage, the Ds have to “meet them halfway.”
When a lunatic escapes the asylum, does the cop who is sent to pick him up have to negotiate with the escapee about reconfinement?
2 Likes
