The Great Experiment

[Menelvir]

I'm just wondering what the current political tactic that involves government shutdown and defaulting on payments to creditors will mean for the future of government and the democratic process generally in America.

Is this a watershed moment? Will things go "back to normal" after this crisis has been averted? Or will this form of political interaction become the de facto standard on how government conducts its affairs in the future?

Or will this be a hallmark in a much more dire timeline, the point at which future historians will point and say 'this was the beginning of the end'?

It's not possible, I don't think, to say "I'm tired of it" and not sound passé -- neither would it be the first time anyone has complained about it.

If fringe Republicans truly despise the ACA, and truly believe it will hurt more people than it will help, then it seems to me that they can eliminate it when they hold the political capital to do so (i.e. when the bulk of the American people have given them that political capital).

Or is it all really just a show for our benefit, so that the bulk of us will keep happily dancing on our little puppet strings and keep doing business as usual?

After all, the death knell for government would be if no one cared. But there are enough people that care and still put faith in the system that it keeps chugging along.

Your thoughts?

[Harrison]

I think this is simply political maneuvering on both sides.

"Look at what party X caused!"

"Vote for me. I was against what party Y did."

It's business as usual. Rich people marching to the beat of their own drum.

[Zanchief]

Yep, both sides are equally to blame...as long you don't actually look at what happened.

[Jay]

Usually it is te rich vs the rich but in this case the radical republicans are holding moderate republicans and democrats hostage. That's my takeaway from it anyways.

[brinstar]

Usually it is te rich vs the rich but in this case the radical republicans are holding moderate republicans and democrats hostage. That's my takeaway from it anyways.

this is a good thread and i will have a lot more to say when i have time to type it all, but i wanted to comment briefly on jay's post here and say that i almost feel sorry for the moderate republicans over their party being hijacked


...almost. fuck 'em

[Harrison]

The end of September - Obama says he's going to give Syrian Rebels $340 Million dollars.

Beginning of October days later - Obama says he's not going to negotiate with other rich fuckwads on how to fund our own Government.

The blame isn't on the shoulders of one party, and if you say it is, I've got news for you.

[Arlos]

News Flash: 340 million, compared to the size of the budget, is like getting 3 cents change instead of 4 when you buy a candy bar at 7-11.

The shutdown is actually something that the right has been planning since Obama got elected. NY times article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a- ... .html?_r=0

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Yeah, $340 million is insignificant and we should just ignore it. That's the only example of mismanaged funds in the government right now.

I've been reading all of this wrong and it IS all one party's fault. Obama and the Democratic party in its entirety are the infallible force of all that is good in this world.

[Zanchief]

Your sarcastic posts are the smartest.

[brinstar]

white noise from white trash, sigh

[Arlos]

Yeah, $340 million is insignificant and we should just ignore it. That's the only example of mismanaged funds in the government right now.

I've been reading all of this wrong and it IS all one party's fault. Obama and the Democratic party in its entirety are the infallible force of all that is good in this world.

You certainly went hard for the straw man there. Who claimed, anywhere, that Obama and the Democrats were in any way infallible, or that didn't have their own issues? In specific, I don't necessarily think that funding arms for rebels in Syria is actually mismanagement, though we may differ on that. However,the shutdown has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with funds management or mismanagement, and *IS* entirely the product of the Right. It is entirely about the right trying to kill Obamacare, with a secondary objective to damage Obama. So yes, in this the Dems ARE blameless. Go read that NY Times article I posted if you want the background.

The ACA is law, passed by congress, signed by the president, and even declared constitutional by the SCOTUS. The Right is just terrified that it will prove as popular as Medicare or Social Security, and will give the Democrats an electoral advantage in the future. So, they're going to insane and extralegal lengths to try and kill it. It's not going to work, and is going to cost them big time in the 2014 elections.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

The blame isn't on the shoulders of one party

Who claimed, anywhere, that Obama and the Democrats were in any way infallible, or that didn't have their own issues?

So yes, in this the Dems ARE blameless.

You done did went there I reckon to y'all.

[brinstar]

stop trolling please this is a serious thread

[brinstar]

I'm just wondering what the current political tactic that involves government shutdown and defaulting on payments to creditors will mean for the future of government and the democratic process generally in America.

Is this a watershed moment? Will things go "back to normal" after this crisis has been averted? Or will this form of political interaction become the de facto standard on how government conducts its affairs in the future?

Or will this be a hallmark in a much more dire timeline, the point at which future historians will point and say 'this was the beginning of the end'?

It's not possible, I don't think, to say "I'm tired of it" and not sound passé -- neither would it be the first time anyone has complained about it.

If fringe Republicans truly despise the ACA, and truly believe it will hurt more people than it will help, then it seems to me that they can eliminate it when they hold the political capital to do so (i.e. when the bulk of the American people have given them that political capital).

Or is it all really just a show for our benefit, so that the bulk of us will keep happily dancing on our little puppet strings and keep doing business as usual?

After all, the death knell for government would be if no one cared. But there are enough people that care and still put faith in the system that it keeps chugging along.

Your thoughts?

the current GOP tactic of shutdowns and defaults is anything but politics as usual. it is not the typical cheap attack tactic used by the minority party against the majority party (which both parties are often guilty of), it is a new and different thing. ostensibly, this entire flap is about the PPACA. but if you look beyond the surface, past all the talking heads on the neutered news orgs desperate to appear unbiased (as well as those on FNC and MSNBC who don't try nearly as hard), you've got the real problem: fiscal terrorism*. some folks don't think that's a fair term to use, but those folks are pussies.

but first, facts about the law. the PPACA was thought up in a conservative think tank, implemented by a republican governor in MA, passed both houses of congress, and was signed into law by the president. Rs took over the house in 2010 (thanks in large part to extremely wealthy people who spent billions on putting a rocket engine under the crazies on the far right fringe) and immediately started voting over and over again to repeal the PPACA. this is, of course, a massive waste of money - why would the D-controlled senate or the POTUS agree to repeal his #1 policy achievement? idiocy. yet Rs and their super loud (and super rich) crazy wing decided to make the 2012 election allllll about the PPACA. for reasons i'm still not sure about, they trotted out Mr. Health Care Reform himself to go head to head against the POTUS, and were handed a stunning** loss - the POTUS was reelected by a comfortable margin, and dems in both chambers gained seats. among other things romney had primarily promised repeal of PPACA, and the american people said thanks but no thanks. to add insult to injury, in june the SCOTUS upheld the law. yet many Rs see the PPACA as unconstitutional . they rail against it day and night, they call it the worst thing to ever happen in american history, they call it socialism***, and worst of all they say over and over again that the american people don't want it - conveniently ignoring the results of the 2012 election, which certainly did not prove that to be the case.

(i know there were some asterisks in the preceding paragraphs. relax, i'll get to that eventually.)

so where are the Rs now? they completely lost a winnable election in almost every sense, they were beaten in every single growing demographic, and their only reliable demographic is shrinking by the day. they hold the house by a slim margin, have only the slimmest of chances to take back the senate, and have to spend the next few years choosing from their stable of clowns which damaged loon they're going to throw against hillary and/or biden in 2016. their approval rating is in the cellar, their far-right platform was roundly rejected in almost every major race, and it was only thanks to 2010 gerrymandering that they even managed to hold the house. for a few months it looked like they might begin listening to their dwindling moderate bloc - who had been warning for years that until the party changes course on its most backward and divisive policy planks (immigration, gay marriage, welfare, and possibly abortion) they would never again make substantial electoral gains - but then the loudmouths on the far right shouted them down amidst threats of being challenged from the right during reelection primaries (in which usually only serious partisans vote).

these are the throes of a party fighting for its life in a civil war. the old guard, representing the center-right, want to adjust the platform so it appears more centrist, in hopes of winning back seats in congress in 2014 and possibly even the white house in 2016. but the upstart tea party, the Monster to the wealthy people's Frankenstein, will not abide compromise. this is where the new radical wing of the GOP differs from the old guard: it regards any and all political opposition as completely illegitimate, even (or, in fact, especially) when that opposition comes from within the GOP. before 2010, either political party would happily do whatever nefarious thing it could in order to gain the upper hand over the other party, but neither party ever denied or questioned the legitimacy of the other. sure Rs are jerks, Ds would say, but they were elected just like me so i have to do my job and work with them (and vice versa). that's how they were able to compromise - nobody got everything, but everybody got something - and for better or worse, the govt managed to trudge on.

but these new screwballs believe balls to bones that their opposition is illegitimate - not simply wrong, but invalid. our president is kenyan. democrats engineer voter fraud. obamacare is unconstitutional. etc etc etc, every single mindia talking point, bla bla bla. when your opponent is illegitimate, you don't have to compromise. so no, this is not "both parties' fault", this is the fringe element of one party hijacking the entire democratic process in the name of ideological extremism. like any hijackers, they need a weapon, and the only weapon they had left was their partial control over the budget. the first time they took the budget hostage, they were all take and no give, which resulted in the sequester. this time, they've taken the entire government hostage and handed over a completely ridiculous list of demands - delay/defund obamacare, approve Keystone XL, and hamstring both the EPA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. put another way, they are basically trying to retroactively award themselves winners of the 2012 election, much like harrison likes to retroactively christen himself winner of arguments he couldn't win against a donkey. worse, they're now promising to take the national economy hostage (and, by extension, the global economy).

yet as many people like to forget, this is Mission Accomplished for them. these are the people who think government is the problem, so why should anyone be surprised when they do their best to destroy it? what impetus do they have to reopen the government when they like it better shut down? this is the party of Privatize Everything! their genius plan is to blame the shutdown on the senate and the president for being "unwilling to negotiate". that is both explicitly untrue and incredibly cynical. first, there were 19 different times that senate democrats attempted to go to conference with house republicans, yet all 19 of them were filibustered by republican senators (mostly cruz and king). second, PPACA is already a law. past tense.

like i said, the debt ceiling fight is around the corner. remember earlier when i made the Frankenstein's Monster reference? well, true to that story, the Monster is proving more diabolical than the good doctor imagined. with a debt default just around the corner, many of the uber-rich who funded the fiscal terrorists are getting nervous. they still hate PPACA and want to see it destroyed, but what they've created has taken on a mind of its own and now the markets are starting to quake a bit.

*fiscal terrorism. terrorism might be a strong word, but let's do a little thought experiment. if al-qaeda came in and used legislative hijinks to first attack the gov't budget, then interrupt its functions, and finally hold the national economy (and, by extension, the global economy) hostage, until such point that leadership caves and guts laws passed according to procedure and upheld by our highest court - would you call them anything else?

**stunning loss. remember on election night when karl rove flipped his fuckin lid and demanded that FNC's election center retract its call of OH for obama? along with the illegitimacy of its opposition, the fringe right believes all media (outside of FNC and talk radio, of course) has a liberal slant - so it has rejected any analysis whatsoever that calls its convictions into question, that suggests the public isn't behind it, or suggests societal ills can be blamed on anything but the socialists in the senate and the white house. that's why their 2012 defeat was so stunning - they saw polls that said they were 5-10 points behind and simply waved them off as biased! rove flipped his shit because he was 100% convinced that only the polls he read were legitimate. of course, that hasn't changed; they're currently happily ignoring polls that say americans are largely blaming them for the shutdown or that say even the reps believed to be "safe" (thanks to gerrymandering) are currently trailing generic democratic challengers.

***PPACA is socialist. uhh, no it's fucking not. if you think a program which by definition involves private health care insurance has anything to do with socialism, you clearly do not understand socialism. at all. punch your own nutsack.


anyway, back to menelvir's excellent questions. man, i don't know what's going to happen. part of me wants the sensible wing of the GOP to talk the tea party down from the ledge, reopen the govt, and raise a debt ceiling without any more motherfucking drama. another part of me wants the sensible wing of the GOP to just straight up kick the motherfuckers out for being too goddamn crazy. the tiny little anarchist in me wants them to crash the system and bring it all down in flames so we can start building something more equitable in its place.

more than anything, i don't want this to be the way we do things. if this shit is gonna be the new normal, i think i'd rather see it burn to the ground. i think that's coming down the line sooner or later anyway - our entire economy and existence is built on $20/barrel oil, and oil now costs 5-6 times that. our govt hemorrhages money every quarter in order to keep oilmen in business, digging up fossil fuels that cost more and more cash and resources to get out of the earth, and their wealth and resultant economic and political power largely hinders/prevents possible renewable replacements from gaining much ground. at some point - $150/barrel? $160? - the whole house of cards will collapse, everyone's wealth will evaporate, and we will have to rebuild our drive-half-an-hour-to-dinner society into a much smaller and locally-based iteration. local energy, local food, local manufacturing, local markets, local everything. it's coming soon, and we are going broke trying to hold back the tide.

i think in the long run we'll be better off. i also kinda think the USA is too big for itself and should split up into 5-6 nation-states based on geography (new england, the south, the great lakes region, the plains, southwest, and northwest [hawaii can be independent and canada can have alaska]).

[Harrison]

I like how in the middle of your diatribe you included your fumbling idiocy of a gun control thread you had no business posting, much less arguing for. You just can't let it go. It's pathetic already.

Also, I don't even know how it's possible to not place blame on both sides for this, for many reasons beyond the single example I already gave. (Which was a doozy.)

[brinstar]

I like how in the middle of your diatribe you included your fumbling idiocy of a gun control thread you had no business posting, much less arguing for. You just can't let it go. It's pathetic already.

trolltrap sprung. tell me, did you actually read my post or did you just ctrl-F your name? let me be perfectly clear: you didn't win shit and you didn't "destroy" a single one of my arguments. ever. you're the only one who thinks you did, and it's embarrassing. wanna know why? because you can't. you're a toothless squinting puppy trying to fight in the pit. quit gumming my nuts and go post about video games or other shit you actually know things about.

Also, I don't even know how it's possible to not place blame on both sides for this, for many reasons beyond the single example I already gave. (Which was a doozy.)

edit: guess you answered my question. i was incredibly specific as to why it is possible/necessary to place blame on only one side for this particular issue, and can back up nearly every point i made with facts. clearly the concept requires far greater mental faculty than you're capable of. try reading it over again, out loud if necessary, or perhaps take a look at arlos's link. better yet, save all of us the headache of explaining it again in smaller words and just bow out while you're far, far behind.

[Zanchief]

Hey guys. Harrison gave us a doozy. Both sides are to blame, because the Dems spent some money where he thinks they shouldn't have, therefore it was justified to shut down the government possibly causing irreperable harm. Also, this is related to a gun control argument he had a few months ago in which he won the internet.

This case should be closed. He has a genius level IQ.

[Harrison]

You have serious issues with objective reasoning.

You are completely incapable of seeing fault where you don't want it to be, else your fragile ego will collapse in on itself after having wasted a 10k word essay on how evil the other guys are.(and never once accepting that both sides are at fault, however the split between the two falls)

Also, Zan, you're a Canadian. Your input is invalid here.

You didn't do shit but cry about the psychotic right wing no one even likes. You just can't take it that it's everyone's fault. Holding politics above the welfare of the people is everyone's fault. Not just them there evil guys hurrdurr.

The only reason you waste your time writing these massive TL;DR cryfests is because the pool of dissenting opinion here is all of 3 people, tops. (Mindia doesn't count.)

[Reynaldo]

I view it as sort of the last stand of the radical right wing.

As a moderate Republican, I just want them to let it go. To me, when a president is elected, it's your job to work with him/her to achieve the best outcome from the current situation. The ACA got passed, so while good or bad it itself, just work with the darn thing for now and see how it goes. If it succeeds, then great, everyone wins. If it fails and people have a really hard time with it, then I'm sure that will reflect at the polls in 2016 and you can work on dismantling it then. As it is right now, the Republicans are digging such a perception hole that they're not going to have a chance either way and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a swing of majority in all 3 phases of gov't to Democrat by 2016.

I mean shit, my insurance premiums have gone up every year for almost 15 years of working. The GOP is just now saying hey, we don't like the ACA because it's going to raise premiums? Where the F were you the past 15 years?

I do agree with a lot of what the GOP stands for and the ideals they want to put into effect, but this is not the time or place to do it. All they're doing now is sabotaging their own future in an America that is already swaying more and more left. Shoot, even Texas was only like 53/47% this past election for Romney, no?

[Zanchief]

You're accusing me of not having any objective reasoning? Maybe you should try formulating an argument in a grown up manner, just a single time, before you start bringing up reasoning skills.

Here's a hint, objectivity is not making two sides equal for the purpose of parity. Objective is evaluating each side or an argument on its merit. These things are not equal. Your argument is not logical. You've tried to interject a gun debate in every thread about shutting down the government. Why? Because you have nothing of substance to say. Your one argument was immediately refuted by Arlos. He even did it politely, which I never would have (a respect you've earned for yourself).

Proclaim yourself lord master of the internet if you'd like. You're willfully and wholly ignorant on almost all subjects you speak of. You revel in your ignorance because you feel your some contrarian. Maybe part of that is my fault because I have no need to treat you with even the slightest amount of civility because I don't like you. "Debating" in this manor almost always leads stupid people into digging in their heels and reverting back onto their cognitive dissonance.

But then I remind myself of the few times every month where I treat you like an adult, because I’m an optimist and I think we all hope one day you’ll change. The same logical fallacies riddle your posts. The same attempts to hide your ignorance with angry bravado and tough guy acts. You're hopeless. But please, don't pretend that I'm the one that isn't capable of objectivity. That's just piling stupid on top of stupid, and there’s already plenty to go around.

Stick to the sarcastic posts. Some lurker might actually mistake you for having something intelligent to say for once.

[Harrison]

What I don't understand about the ACA and these insane rich people opposing it, is why don't they champion it and say, "We did it first. This is a rebranded Romney plan!"

Win/win.

Also, Romney is a fucking toolbag.

Edit for the butthurt Canadian who has no business discussing politics of a foreign nation: The objective reasoning part was for your buttbuddy cornfed redneck. I haven't tried to bring in gun control to this. It has no bearing here. Your boyfriend mentioned another thread he got trounced on, and I responded to it. Calm your tits and wait for a Canadian politics post to chime in on.

[Harrison]

I posted, "lol hey guis those republicans are so dum right?" on Moveon.org

I'm so smart. My opinion is superior to all others because no one disagreed there! I AM DEBATE MASTORz!

[Menelvir]

Some good points in here, aside from some personal attacks, but I guess that's par for the NT, eh?

I think it's political manuevering, but as others pointed out, the specific tactics involved make it hardly business as usual -- which is the part that prompted my inquiry. If this is the way our government is going to work from this point forward... I don't think it's sustainable.

I liked this:

these are the throes of a party fighting for its life in a civil war. the old guard, representing the center-right, want to adjust the platform so it appears more centrist, in hopes of winning back seats in congress in 2014 and possibly even the white house in 2016. but the upstart tea party, the Monster to the wealthy people's Frankenstein, will not abide compromise

It's almost like the Republican far-right wants a complete re-imagining and re-creation of what 'republican' means. In a way, I'm almost fascinated with what direction it is going to go next.

And also:

when a president is elected, it's your job to work with him/her to achieve the best outcome from the current situation.

That's been my feeling as well, and I won't even give the benefit of revealing my political party affiliation (assuming I have one).

And this too:

The GOP is just now saying hey, we don't like the ACA because it's going to raise premiums? Where the F were you the past 15 years?

One of the first times I thought of this was back in 2011 when the Republicans first began raising the issue that there was an economic crisis that was somehow different in kind such that immediate action was required. And my thought was: how is this different from where things were a year ago? Two years ago? Eight years ago? If there's a pandemic, you don't plod along for years and then suddenly decide to start immunizations.

[Zanchief]

You seem a strange fellow Menelvir. You look at the world falling to pieces and say, this is fascinating. You have a very strange view point.

It's almost like the Republican far-right wants a complete re-imagining and re-creation of what 'republican' means. In a way, I'm almost fascinated with what direction it is going to go next.

The Republican Party has always been a few different cross sections that have been united under one banner. As the libertarians are gaining more ground, they seem to be exerting their power more than the other sides (Religious folks, Gun Nuts, Rich People), and these guys don't mess around. The other groups wanted to play by the rules because the rules worked for them. Libertarians want nothing more than to burn the government to the ground. Win or lose, they get what they want. Anarchy.

[Menelvir]

I don't know. Maybe I'm just a contrarian. Maybe I just don't like choosing sides. Since my adult years, I've always believed in the necessity of balance -- not necessarily fairness -- but balance. The yin-yang has been a favorite symbol for almost as long. I've never liked extreme views -- of any stripe.

As far as falling to pieces, I guess I just don't get that worked up over it -- I view it rather like the realities of death or time.

I think your definition of libertarian is different from mine -- my impression is that libertarians want strong government, but only in a limited way -- e.g. strong military to protect the homeland, strong justice system to protect citizenry, but limited or zero laws regarding personal choices/freedoms (e.g. gun ownership, drug use, prostitution, sexual preferences/choices). Anarchy is no government at all -- a Hobbesian 'state of nature' (omnium contra omnes).