|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 17, 2013 15:24:36 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 17, 2013 15:49:46 GMT -5
That's not that hard to explain--the shutdown was an attempt to prevent a new entitlement from being put into place, one which would cost $1.8 trillion over the next ten years and have a much, much worse negative effect on the economy did than the government shutdown did. Whether you agree with the analysis is one thing, but if that's your rational, it's easy to see how you can justify the shutdown from a fiscal conservative standpoint, even though it had a negative effect. It's the same idea behind medical treatments that makes you sicker but cure you.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 17, 2013 16:07:37 GMT -5
That's not that hard to explain--the shutdown was an attempt to prevent a new entitlement from being put into place, one which would cost $1.8 trillion over the next ten years and have a much, much worse negative effect on the economy did than the government shutdown did. Whether you agree with the analysis is one thing, but if that's your rational, it's easy to see how you can justify the shutdown from a fiscal conservative standpoint, even though it had a negative effect. It's the same idea behind medical treatments that makes you sicker but cure you. "Attempt" is too kind a word. "Vainglorious crusade" might be more appropriate. I might agree with you if the Republican strategy of taking the government hostage had any chance of succeeding. Let's be honest: the shutdown was about politics and not principle. It backfired for the party as a whole, but probably helped Republicans who live in gerrymandered congressional districts and the oft-mentioned junior senator from Texas, at least in the short term: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/14/why-ted-cruz-doesnt-care-about-the-2016-general-election/ON EDIT: I should note that we're probably in some agreement on entitlement reform and whether the ACA is ultimately a good thing for the country. Anyone who hasn't read the CBO's latest long-term budget outlook should do so. www.cbo.gov/publication/44521
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 17, 2013 16:42:15 GMT -5
That's not that hard to explain--the shutdown was an attempt to prevent a new entitlement from being put into place, one which would cost $1.8 trillion over the next ten years and have a much, much worse negative effect on the economy did than the government shutdown did. Whether you agree with the analysis is one thing, but if that's your rational, it's easy to see how you can justify the shutdown from a fiscal conservative standpoint, even though it had a negative effect. It's the same idea behind medical treatments that makes you sicker but cure you. "Attempt" is too kind a word. "Vainglorious crusade" might be more appropriate. I might agree with you if the Republican strategy of taking the government hostage had any chance of succeeding. Let's be honest: the shutdown was about politics and not principle. It backfired for the party as a whole, but probably helped Republicans who live in gerrymandered congressional districts and the oft-mentioned junior senator from Texas, at least in the short term: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/14/why-ted-cruz-doesnt-care-about-the-2016-general-election/ON EDIT: I should note that we're probably in some agreement on entitlement reform and whether the ACA is ultimately a good thing for the country. Anyone who hasn't read the CBO's latest long-term budget outlook should do so. www.cbo.gov/publication/44521Yeah, I'm with you on the stupidity of the tactic and the complete unlikelihood of success.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Oct 17, 2013 21:38:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm with you on the stupidity of the tactic and the complete unlikelihood of success. Doesn't that kind of negate your "fiscal conservative" justification then? The thing I thought was most telling was when the House started making their ransom payment and sole takeaway out of all of this the removal of the Treasury's ability take emergency measures. That had nothing to do with fiscal conservatism or principle whatsoever and everything to do with trying to make their next future yet-already-planned ransom attempt more painful. "Let's negotiate - you can keep your car, and I'll just take the locks off your home."
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 17, 2013 22:28:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm with you on the stupidity of the tactic and the complete unlikelihood of success. Doesn't that kind of negate your "fiscal conservative" justification then? The thing I thought was most telling was when the House started making their ransom payment and sole takeaway out of all of this the removal of the Treasury's ability take emergency measures. That had nothing to do with fiscal conservatism or principle whatsoever and everything to do with trying to make their next future yet-already-planned ransom attempt more painful. "Let's negotiate - you can keep your car, and I'll just take the locks off your home." I'm not sure how my differing opinion on the likelihood of their success makes their decision incompatible with the principles of fiscal conservatism. I disagree on tactics, not principle.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 17, 2013 23:19:56 GMT -5
Maybe a true conservative would have counted the votes and realized that an all-or-nothing proposition was a very bad investment of time, money, and political capital.
Also, if this was really planned, why hold the entire government hostage? They had April through September to negotiate with the Senate on FY14 appropriations for Defense, VA, Homeland Security, Interior (since staffing the WWII Memorial apparently is the most important thing the government does), and whatever else they can tolerate, and leave the more liberal favorites - Labor, HHS, Education, HUD, USDA (because food stamps) to be shut down over preserving the right to be denied health insurance. That strategy also would require that the obstructionists in the Senate allow appropriations bills on the floor without wasting a week of filibustering and cloture votes on every bill.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 18, 2013 9:33:35 GMT -5
Maybe a true conservative would have counted the votes and realized that an all-or-nothing proposition was a very bad investment of time, money, and political capital. Also, if this was really planned, why hold the entire government hostage? They had April through September to negotiate with the Senate on FY14 appropriations for Defense, VA, Homeland Security, Interior (since staffing the WWII Memorial apparently is the most important thing the government does), and whatever else they can tolerate, and leave the more liberal favorites - Labor, HHS, Education, HUD, USDA (because food stamps) to be shut down over preserving the right to be denied health insurance. That strategy also would require that the obstructionists in the Senate allow appropriations bills on the floor without wasting a week of filibustering and cloture votes on every bill. Conservative does not mean "good at politics". Also, your plan assumes a certain amount of naivete on the Democrats part--why would they give up their leverage like that?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 18, 2013 11:19:24 GMT -5
Doesn't that kind of negate your "fiscal conservative" justification then? The thing I thought was most telling was when the House started making their ransom payment and sole takeaway out of all of this the removal of the Treasury's ability take emergency measures. That had nothing to do with fiscal conservatism or principle whatsoever and everything to do with trying to make their next future yet-already-planned ransom attempt more painful. "Let's negotiate - you can keep your car, and I'll just take the locks off your home." And this is what I don't get. If you are a business which holds government contracts (or relies on such a business), if you a person who invests your own money in the stock market, or if you are an investment firm whose business is making profits for others, these continued ransom attempts probably hurt your bottom line and upset you. Hell, you are probably upset just by knowing that we will have to go through this charade again. How is continuing to set up these showdowns good for general faith in American government or a particular political party? The only individual politicians who seem to benefit are those who have a large number of constituents who fear the future and can earn political points by throwing a wrench in the government machine.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 18, 2013 12:12:31 GMT -5
Nevada, I hope you at least got a crappy, pre-packaged Joe Biden mini-muffin after all this.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 18, 2013 18:41:01 GMT -5
Nevada, I hope you at least got a crappy, pre-packaged Joe Biden mini-muffin after all this. No, but a co-worker brought in donuts today.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 18, 2013 18:52:08 GMT -5
It is clear that the public opinion war has been decisively won by the Democrat Party.
What else could explain the pass they are getting by clinging to a new entitlement program, the rollout of which makes Verizon security look competent and customer friendly by comparison.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 18, 2013 22:44:41 GMT -5
Maybe a true conservative would have counted the votes and realized that an all-or-nothing proposition was a very bad investment of time, money, and political capital. Also, if this was really planned, why hold the entire government hostage? They had April through September to negotiate with the Senate on FY14 appropriations for Defense, VA, Homeland Security, Interior (since staffing the WWII Memorial apparently is the most important thing the government does), and whatever else they can tolerate, and leave the more liberal favorites - Labor, HHS, Education, HUD, USDA (because food stamps) to be shut down over preserving the right to be denied health insurance. That strategy also would require that the obstructionists in the Senate allow appropriations bills on the floor without wasting a week of filibustering and cloture votes on every bill. Conservative does not mean "good at politics". Also, your plan assumes a certain amount of naivete on the Democrats part--why would they give up their leverage like that? What I described is what would have happened, more or less, if they had just let Appropriations bills proceed through regular order. Defense, VA, Transportation, Homeland Security are the easiest to reach agreements - a lot of Democrats have defense contractors, military bases, veterans, VA facilities, transportation projects similar to those of Republican districts - but Labor, HHS, HUD have long-standing divisive issues that make them the hardest to find common ground. DoD can't be run effectively or efficiently on continuing resolutions that just carry over the past funding priorities with sequestration on top. Defense funding needs and schedules change year to year. One year the Navy gets funds for two submarines, two destroyers, and partial funding of an aircraft carrier; the next year only one sub, one destroyer, a larger amount for the carrier, and an amphibious assault ship. The Army gets a battalion of Stryker vehicles one year, then the next year they need the money for something else instead. The Armed Services Committees and Defense Appropriations Subcommittees spend most of their time in Congress understanding the details, needs, costs, challenges, disputes, etc. that go into the DoD bills. The Budget Committees just put the numbers on a page and couldn't tell you what the numbers will actually pay for and why.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 24, 2013 10:13:36 GMT -5
So six Democrat Senators standing for re-election now want to delay the Individual Mandate.
I am shocked, shocked that they are now on the side of the anarchist, kidnapper terrorists who hijacked the government.
Here are your winnings, Captain...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Oct 24, 2013 12:49:22 GMT -5
I am shocked, shocked that they are now on the side of the anarchist, kidnapper terrorists who hijacked the government. Like saying the infinite amount of monkeys typing randomly are on the same wavelength as Shakespeare. Just because one of the things they threw against the wall in a disorganized panic matches doesn't make it the same.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 24, 2013 12:57:17 GMT -5
That is an insult to disorganized monkeys everywhere. These six are survivalist cockroaches of the lowest order.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 24, 2013 13:40:36 GMT -5
It is funny that now that the Republicans have a legitimate complaint about the ACA, they have zero credibility with the public because they spent the past three years making up such ridiculous lies about it and never recognized that the non-Tea party, non-paranoid public completely tuned them out more than a year ago.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 24, 2013 14:01:41 GMT -5
So we should ignore the impending trainwreck because the Republicans pointed it out first.
It has been said that people get the government they deserve. That is both sad and terrifying.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 24, 2013 14:30:23 GMT -5
Oh, come on!!
These are just signup issues.
Once we get past those, it's nothing but smooth sailing and milkshakes all around, baby!!
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Oct 24, 2013 14:34:01 GMT -5
So we should ignore the impending trainwreck because the Republicans pointed it out first. The Republicans did not point out IT issues first. And that's all this really boils down to. They are crucial to fix, but they probably will clear most of them away before December. I've been involved in launching a website that got way more traffic than expected and it's no fun. Things will work pre-launch, and then when traffic overwhelms the site, I've spent hours adding indexes to tables and trying to figure out why certain things are going so slow, disabling features, etc. Some of the reporting on this (Chuck Todd's why don't you just add more servers, etc) has been really epicly awful.
|
|