Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's JournalHow can people say that ACA makes us less free (or enslaves us)
when nearly every major industrialized nation in the world has a (in most cases) much more progressive health care system than we do and yet there is absolutely no way that anybody could even begin to suggest that their citizens are living under the boot of a totalitarian dictatorships? England? France? Germany? Dicatorships? I know. It's completely nonsensical but Fox viewers, Limbaugh listeners, et. al believe that a modest package of reforms of our health care/insurance system- apparently the least that our Congress back in 2010 could manage to adopt without being swallowed up by a black hole (or something) have become slaves under a re-elected socialist tyranny. They fail to realize and/or appreciate the irony of being allowed to listen/watch anti-Obama propaganda 24-7-365 without them- or Fox News staff, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et. al- being hauled off to Gitmo. I guess that it just proves what a horrible dictator Obama has been? 
Don't think the Constitution is really the problem here
it seems like a lot of arcane rules in the House/Senate (which aren't in the Constitution AFAIK) and a law (debt ceiling) that some Congress- for whatever reason- passed a long time ago are gumming up the works. While the rules have almost certainly been used/abused by both parties for some time, the Republicans have taken them, seemingly, to the point of no return in their attempts to undermine/obstruct President Barack Obama. Once a Republican gets back in the WH, they will turn around and immediately denounce- vociferously- any attempts by Democrats to even think about using such hardball tactics (which they likely wouldn't resort to but anyway).
So far, all they are talking about is a short-term raise in the debt limit
they're not even talking about re-opening the government. They seem to still be demanding a ransom for just doing their jobs- and in this case they're not really even talking about doing everything (i.e. funding the government). All of their "negotiations" seemed geared towards getting a bunch of stuff that they aren't (or shouldn't be) entitled to electorally/politically and giving ground on, well, nothing other than maybe doing their jobs (for a short period of time after which there's no guarantee they won't do this again). After this is all over, we need to somehow eliminate the debt ceiling and ensure some kind of mechanism for emergency funding for the government so that this can't keep happening time and time again (not to mention procedural rules that ensure rampant obstructionism).
They don't seem to get it
Doing their jobs isn't a "concession" on their part- and should not be used to demand ANYTHING. *ugh* And what the hell kind of "changes" do they want to make to the health care law that are going to make it better? They don't want to make it better. They all still want to kill it. I think that they are figuring out that now maybe the best way to do it is death by a thousand cuts. And what's to stop them from causing more showdowns over the debt ceiling and government funding so they can now try whittling away at the law? NO DEAL!
Here's the one million dollar question for you, Mr. Ryan:
Prior to now, were there Republicans and/or Democrats threatening not to raise the debt ceiling and potentially cause us to default unless their demands were met? I don't think it happened in 1985 and I don't think it happened in 1997.
Also, Senate Democrats tried to sit down with the Republicans EIGHTEEN (or is it nineteen?) times THIS YEAR since passing a budget and NOTHING HAPPENED
WTF is wrong with these people and their perception of reality (and of how stupid and/or ignorant that they think the rest of us are)?
:
Nothing fails more than failure
and we got the *lovely* "sequester" out of the first "Super Committee". I'm scared to know what we would get out of another failed one. *ugh*
We already have a "Super Committee". It's called Congress and we don't need anything other than for some of its members to do their constitutionally designated jobs- which don't include government shutdowns, debts defaults, partial funding bills, etc.
Even if the Senate held a vote it would still likely fail
and even if somehow, miraculously, it passed in the Senate, President Obama would veto it and there wouldn't be a 2/3 majority in both Houses to override it. So, without a substantial bipartisan support and/or the support of the President, they've known that it's a doomed effort. Their one and only chance to make this happen (until at least 2017) was to get a Republican Senate and Romney in the WH in 2012 but it didn't happen. They nevertheless had to make sure that their new Republicans in Congress got a chance to vote against ACA and have now, of course, resorted to shutting down the government and threatening a default if it isn't gutted, delayed, modified, etc. despite the fact that the Exchanges opened on time on 10/01/13 and are operational- if somewhat glitchy (but Republicans aren't really interested in addressing any issues that would make it easier for people to sign up anyway)- so delaying or significantly modifying it is probably going to make things worse for the country than if they had left it alone and/or were interested in working constructively to make things work right- though that would've involved compromising and compromising is evil, so it's not going to happen that way, so...........
They have to get it through their heads- at some point- that there really is no overwhelming popular support for delaying or repealing ACA and that the focus should be on fixing some of the parts of the law that are causing some issues and fixing them- or building popular support for repealing it and electing people to Congress and to the WH that will do it. Until that happens, any further efforts and/or votes are only going to be purely symbolic
What I don't get (re: Moderates being afraid of primaries)
They obviously want to keep their jobs (don't all politicians?) but in order to keep their jobs (and from being primaried) they have to go increasingly hard-right to do it, which means that they have to out-crazy the crazy the teabaggers, not only in words but in action if they go back. At the end of the day, what is the point in keeping your seat if you have to keep moving further and further to the right in order to make it happen? Why would any "sane" (i.e. moderate) Republican want to have to be a wide-eyed lunatic in order to go back to Congress every 2-6 years?
The Democrats won a majority of votes in 2012 (nationally)
that, unfortunately, didn't translate to winning control of enough House seats to win the House in 2012, largely, I believe, due to gerrymandering following the 2010 midterms, however it is an important indicator- particularly with the current Republican shutdown- that the public-at-large increasingly does not favor the GOP. It's hard to say what will happen in next year's midterms of course and Democratic turnout will be key but the longer this shutdown lasts, if the Republicans decide to cause the US to default (entirely unnecessarily I might add), and the more extreme the GOP gets, I'd say that there is a very definite possibility that the Dems could build up enough momentum to take the House. Anything is certainly possible IMHO.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,401
