Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
51 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Republicans: Doomsday Cult or Hostage Takers? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are just run of the mill hostage takers?




Or, as this suggests, a Doomsday Cult:


6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
Chigwell, Essex, London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
You really need to time things better.

The debt ceiling fight should be before the government shutdown fight so your kicking the can from the horrendous to merely bad result rather than the other way around.

But seriously surely every cycle of this just makes eventual default more likely. Plus it can't be too many more times before the market expects it to happen and you end up with higher borrowing costs either way. Genius.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoverGuy wrote:
*Yawn*

Are you a Republican?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
 
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
 


he he he.

Ironically, those countries may actually negotiate in better faith than the republicans too.

Negotiations usually involve meeting in the middle somewhere.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
he he he.

Ironically, those countries may actually negotiate in better faith than the republicans too.

Negotiations usually involve meeting in the middle somewhere.


Republicans are giving up a lot by allowing the country to go further into debt against their wishes.
The things the republicans are asking for have sod all to do with the budget. Jitney are trying to use the budget to force through a Republican platform.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
 

So the cartoonist equates Republicans with what are commonly considered the most dangerous, belligerent, hostile and, in the case of North Korea, batshit insane countries in the world. Interesting...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rost
United States
Fort Wayne
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
If our demands are not met,
we’ll refuse to pay our nation’s bills
and default on our financial obligations
destroying our credibility and
destabilizing the world’s economy.


That’s assuming that financial ruin isn’t already inevitable for the US.

That farcical ransom note seems to me the equivalent of someone threatening to sink the Titanic if his demands aren’t met after it’s already smashed into the iceberg.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
he he he.

Ironically, those countries may actually negotiate in better faith than the republicans too.

Negotiations usually involve meeting in the middle somewhere.


Republicans are giving up a lot by allowing the country to go further into debt against their wishes.
The things the republicans are asking for have sod all to do with the budget. Jitney are trying to use the budget to force through a Republican platform.


You don't think a program which spends hundreds of billions of dollars has anything to do with the budget?
If only that was the only thing they were asking for you might have a point. Also why not just reduce the budget, why append an amendment targeting this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You don't think a program which spends hundreds of billions of dollars has anything to do with the budget?


That's actually something the President said this week -- that Obamacare has nothing to do with the budget.


And dutifully repeated by his devotees, I guess.
No more then any other goverment program no. They are duty (and constitutionally bound apparently) to pay the governments debts. Not to try and use that debt to force through measure that congress has already decided upon by some back door method. Obamacare is law, and like any government program has to be funded, they can repeal it when they get a chance, but cannot start to decide to not pay for things that congress has voted on (and passed). If they feel the budget is too great they can reduce it. What they are going is saying it is OK to increase it, as long as we defund one program (and not even that, the defunding is a tactic, they actually want it's implementation delayed (again)). Hell a number of Republicans are happy to have a pipeline approved for support, this has fuck all to do with spending.

All this has done is split (and maybe ruptured) the Republican party, who (not the USA) have been hijacked by ultra conservative.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
 


That's hilarious, because apples are exactly the same as oranges!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
Chigwell, Essex, London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
he he he.

Ironically, those countries may actually negotiate in better faith than the republicans too.

Negotiations usually involve meeting in the middle somewhere.


Republicans are giving up a lot by allowing the country to go further into debt against their wishes.


It really is impossible to tell whether your just shit stirring or actually quite mad.

Somewhere in that parcel of obligations your cool about defaulting on is some dementia ridden granny riding out the final few years of income on a 30 year treasury bond that your hero Reagan signed off on in '85 or something to pay for Star Wars or some other stupid shit.

Your "giving" bondholders the money their owed. Not even because you give a crap about granny but so the free markets you love so much don't decide your solvent but crazy and decide not to give you money any more.

I can only conclude you must hate America.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BJ's joke was funnier than the comic, at least.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
he he he.

Ironically, those countries may actually negotiate in better faith than the republicans too.

Negotiations usually involve meeting in the middle somewhere.


Republicans are giving up a lot by allowing the country to go further into debt against their wishes.
The things the republicans are asking for have sod all to do with the budget. Jitney are trying to use the budget to force through a Republican platform.


You don't think a program which spends hundreds of billions of dollars has anything to do with the budget?
If only that was the only thing they were asking for you might have a point. Also why not just reduce the budget, why append an amendment targeting this?


They passed a bill funding everything except Obamacare. What you're asking for has already been done by the House.
They reduced the budget, how much by?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You don't think a program which spends hundreds of billions of dollars has anything to do with the budget?


That's actually something the President said this week -- that Obamacare has nothing to do with the budget.


And dutifully repeated by his devotees, I guess.
No more then any other goverment program no. They are duty (and constitutionally bound apparently) to pay the governments debts. Not to try and use that debt to force through measure that congress has already decided upon by some back door method. Obamacare is law, and like any government program has to be funded, they can repeal it when they get a chance, but cannot start to decide to not pay for things that congress has voted on (and passed). If they feel the budget is too great they can reduce it. What they are going is saying it is OK to increase it, as long as we defund one program (and not even that, the defunding is a tactic, they actually want it's implementation delayed (again)). Hell a number of Republicans are happy to have a pipeline approved for support, this has fuck all to do with spending.

All this has done is split (and maybe ruptured) the Republican party, who (not the USA) have been hijacked by ultra conservative.

Umm. Maybe.

There's nothing strictly illegal or unconstitutional in the House refusing to fund provisions of the ACA. I view it as an unethical backdoor veto of previously-passed legislation, but obviously others are going to champion the "purse strings" of House Republicans. It's a valid argument even if I don't agree with it or the methodology behind it.

What I find thoroughly invalid (and downright dangerous) is House Republicans tying the defunding of Obamacare to an increase in the debt ceiling. It's idiotic on several levels. First due to the constitutional strictures I already mentioned. Second because it establishes once again that dysfunctional government could actually lead to default on the debt. Third because the Fourteenth Amendment was passed by the Republican Party over strenuous Democratic objections.

House Republicans have the power to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, but they don't have the constitutional authority to do so. AFAIK, the president would be perfectly within his constitutional rights to pay the debt through extra-legislative means if Congress doesn't ratify an extension. Yes, Congress controls the purse strings, but when you come right down to it Treasury is holding the purse.



It was 1868. I think we really can't relate the republicans of 1868 to the republicans of today. The republican party of today essentially came into existence with Reagan + "The abortion issue". In fact, I'd say both parties undergo significant changes every 50 years.

I agree with your other points so it's really a minor nit over your Third point.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D T P
United States
Pikeville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Both political parties are leading us down the path to doomsday. Neither the Republican or the Democrats really represent the people anymore. Our entire political process is consumed with greed, corruption and stupidity. I don't see even one serious politician of honor. Not one! Most should be dragged out into the mall in Washington and stoned by the people.

Spending is completely out of control as the two parties vie for who can best serve their rich and crooked backers. I don't trust any of them anymore.

As for the spending. It is easy to just say ObamaCare is the problem. But the military-Industrial Complex is even a bigger problem. We'll spend billions to make weapons of war to kill but we whine and complain about providing health care for our own citizens. And do not get me wrong here. I do not support ObamaCare. It is badly flawed and just will not work. When it comes right down to it we are just as much idiots as the politicians are if we really believe any insurance company cares about our well being or health. They care only about their profits.

Until WE THE PEOPLE wake up and realize that the parties are just pitting us against each other while they gather up all the wealth for their rich friends we will never escape the doom that's coming.

The dollar will eventually collapse. It probably can't be stopped by anyone now. Already other major emerging nations are trading in currency other than the dollar. This trend will only get worse.

When the dollar finally does collapse the world will likely be plunged into the darkest and deepest depression it has ever seen. Governments will collapse. Financial markets will collapse! The most astonishing thing about this is that even the ultra wealthy don't seem to be able to see how close to the edge we really are. They seem to be as blind to their own coming doom as we are.

Clean your guns people. You're going to need them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
LeeDambis wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You don't think a program which spends hundreds of billions of dollars has anything to do with the budget?


That's actually something the President said this week -- that Obamacare has nothing to do with the budget.


And dutifully repeated by his devotees, I guess.
No more then any other goverment program no. They are duty (and constitutionally bound apparently) to pay the governments debts. Not to try and use that debt to force through measure that congress has already decided upon by some back door method. Obamacare is law, and like any government program has to be funded, they can repeal it when they get a chance, but cannot start to decide to not pay for things that congress has voted on (and passed). If they feel the budget is too great they can reduce it. What they are going is saying it is OK to increase it, as long as we defund one program (and not even that, the defunding is a tactic, they actually want it's implementation delayed (again)). Hell a number of Republicans are happy to have a pipeline approved for support, this has fuck all to do with spending.

All this has done is split (and maybe ruptured) the Republican party, who (not the USA) have been hijacked by ultra conservative.

Umm. Maybe.

There's nothing strictly illegal or unconstitutional in the House refusing to fund provisions of the ACA. I view it as an unethical backdoor veto of previously-passed legislation, but obviously others are going to champion the "purse strings" of House Republicans. It's a valid argument even if I don't agree with it or the methodology behind it.

What I find thoroughly invalid (and downright dangerous) is House Republicans tying the defunding of Obamacare to an increase in the debt ceiling. It's idiotic on several levels. First due to the constitutional strictures I already mentioned. Second because it establishes once again that dysfunctional government could actually lead to default on the debt. Third because the Fourteenth Amendment was passed by the Republican Party over strenuous Democratic objections.

House Republicans have the power to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, but they don't have the constitutional authority to do so. AFAIK, the president would be perfectly within his constitutional rights to pay the debt through extra-legislative means if Congress doesn't ratify an extension. Yes, Congress controls the purse strings, but when you come right down to it Treasury is holding the purse.



It was 1868. I think we really can't relate the republicans of 1868 to the republicans of today. The republican party of today essentially came into existence with Reagan + "The abortion issue". In fact, I'd say both parties undergo significant changes every 50 years.

I agree with your other points so it's really a minor nit over your Third point.

I tie the birth of the modern Republican Party to the defection of Dixiecrats who felt betrayed by Johnson's push for the Civil Rights Act. Nixon's Southern Strategy, with George Wallace siphoning off otherwise anti-Republican votes, was its first successful manifestation (Goldwater also took five southern states in 1964, but he was trounced everywhere else except his home state). If not for Nixon's implosion over Vietnam, the Republican Party would likely have remained moderate-right rather than right-wing.

Yes, it's a fundamentally different party than it was in the aftermath of the Civil War, but the one part of that foundation that hasn't changed - at least in campaign rhetoric and in the public's perception - is that Republicans believe in paying the bills and fiscal responsibility. Bush II was an aberration, not a new manifestation of Republicanism. So the story goes...

unless and until these Republicans refuse to own up to the debts that they, as well as the Democrats, have piled up.


It's also false, look at reagan, who spent like a drunk on a bender. In fact the only president of the last 30 odd years was Clinton, a democrat (and hated by the right).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xlhrider wrote:
Both political parties are leading us down the path to doomsday. Neither the Republican or the Democrats really represent the people anymore. Our entire political process is consumed with greed, corruption and stupidity. I don't see even one serious politician of honor. Not one! Most should be dragged out into the mall in Washington and stoned by the people.

Spending is completely out of control as the two parties vie for who can best serve their rich and crooked backers. I don't trust any of them anymore.

As for the spending. It is easy to just say ObamaCare is the problem. But the military-Industrial Complex is even a bigger problem. We'll spend billions to make weapons of war to kill but we whine and complain about providing health care for our own citizens. And do not get me wrong here. I do not support ObamaCare. It is badly flawed and just will not work. When it comes right down to it we are just as much idiots as the politicians are if we really believe any insurance company cares about our well being or health. They care only about their profits.

Until WE THE PEOPLE wake up and realize that the parties are just pitting us against each other while they gather up all the wealth for their rich friends we will never escape the doom that's coming.

The dollar will eventually collapse. It probably can't be stopped by anyone now. Already other major emerging nations are trading in currency other than the dollar. This trend will only get worse.

When the dollar finally does collapse the world will likely be plunged into the darkest and deepest depression it has ever seen. Governments will collapse. Financial markets will collapse! The most astonishing thing about this is that even the ultra wealthy don't seem to be able to see how close to the edge we really are. They seem to be as blind to their own coming doom as we are.

Clean your guns people. You're going to need them.
Fine up until the last line, who makes guns...the same people who back the parties.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D T P
United States
Pikeville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
xlhrider wrote:
Both political parties are leading us down the path to doomsday. Neither the Republican or the Democrats really represent the people anymore. Our entire political process is consumed with greed, corruption and stupidity. I don't see even one serious politician of honor. Not one! Most should be dragged out into the mall in Washington and stoned by the people.

Spending is completely out of control as the two parties vie for who can best serve their rich and crooked backers. I don't trust any of them anymore.

As for the spending. It is easy to just say ObamaCare is the problem. But the military-Industrial Complex is even a bigger problem. We'll spend billions to make weapons of war to kill but we whine and complain about providing health care for our own citizens. And do not get me wrong here. I do not support ObamaCare. It is badly flawed and just will not work. When it comes right down to it we are just as much idiots as the politicians are if we really believe any insurance company cares about our well being or health. They care only about their profits.

Until WE THE PEOPLE wake up and realize that the parties are just pitting us against each other while they gather up all the wealth for their rich friends we will never escape the doom that's coming.

The dollar will eventually collapse. It probably can't be stopped by anyone now. Already other major emerging nations are trading in currency other than the dollar. This trend will only get worse.

When the dollar finally does collapse the world will likely be plunged into the darkest and deepest depression it has ever seen. Governments will collapse. Financial markets will collapse! The most astonishing thing about this is that even the ultra wealthy don't seem to be able to see how close to the edge we really are. They seem to be as blind to their own coming doom as we are.

Clean your guns people. You're going to need them.
Fine up until the last line, who makes guns...the same people who back the parties.


True! But they don't control them. We've already seen that no government is going to get our guns away from us. And like typical capitalists they will sell you all the guns you'll need to destroy them. They think they will get rich off the very product which will eventually destroy them. Just another example of how stupid they are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xlhrider wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
xlhrider wrote:
Both political parties are leading us down the path to doomsday. Neither the Republican or the Democrats really represent the people anymore. Our entire political process is consumed with greed, corruption and stupidity. I don't see even one serious politician of honor. Not one! Most should be dragged out into the mall in Washington and stoned by the people.

Spending is completely out of control as the two parties vie for who can best serve their rich and crooked backers. I don't trust any of them anymore.

As for the spending. It is easy to just say ObamaCare is the problem. But the military-Industrial Complex is even a bigger problem. We'll spend billions to make weapons of war to kill but we whine and complain about providing health care for our own citizens. And do not get me wrong here. I do not support ObamaCare. It is badly flawed and just will not work. When it comes right down to it we are just as much idiots as the politicians are if we really believe any insurance company cares about our well being or health. They care only about their profits.

Until WE THE PEOPLE wake up and realize that the parties are just pitting us against each other while they gather up all the wealth for their rich friends we will never escape the doom that's coming.

The dollar will eventually collapse. It probably can't be stopped by anyone now. Already other major emerging nations are trading in currency other than the dollar. This trend will only get worse.

When the dollar finally does collapse the world will likely be plunged into the darkest and deepest depression it has ever seen. Governments will collapse. Financial markets will collapse! The most astonishing thing about this is that even the ultra wealthy don't seem to be able to see how close to the edge we really are. They seem to be as blind to their own coming doom as we are.

Clean your guns people. You're going to need them.
Fine up until the last line, who makes guns...the same people who back the parties.


True! But they don't control them. We've already seen that no government is going to get our guns away from us. And like typical capitalists they will sell you all the guns you'll need to destroy them. They think they will get rich off the very product which will eventually destroy them. Just another example of how stupid they are.
Yep, and that is why they have been over...wait they are still in power after decades of abuse (if we buy the bullshit this is anything new). They may not control the guns, they control the media (left and right), they control the debate, and they control BGG. Oh not directly to be sure, but their message (disseminated by those who buy the crap they make sure we hear) ensures that the real problem is obscured from most people. The lie that if you have a gun you can resit the man is just as much a part of the control of the agenda as giving people mobile phones. You think you can resist, so don't ever bother.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D T P
United States
Pikeville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:


q] The lie that if you have a gun you can resit the man is just as much a part of the control of the agenda as giving people mobile phones. You think you can resist, so don't ever bother.


Really! Tell that to the North Vietnamese. Tell it to the Taliban. Tell it to any of the many terrorist organizations on the planet. Hell tell it to the patriots who founded this country in blood!

They don't have overpowering media. They don't have overpowering numbers. But they ARE slowly destroying the most powerful nations on the planet with just a handful of guns and the will to fight.

And when the financial meltdown comes and the people are homeless and starving they will fight back. And who will fight for the wealthy? The lowly paid security guard at the gates of their gated communities? Of course not. They will go home and protect their families. The police? They will be overwhelmed by the shear numbers. And when there is no government to pay them do you really think they will stay loyal. They're far to visible a target. They don't have a chance. The military? Do you really believe the common soldier will shoot down starving children and grandma? They will turn against the government just like the people.

Guns do make a difference. That's why the founding father's understood the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xlhrider wrote:
Really! Tell that to the North Vietnamese.


Uh, North Vietnam had a very big army. They had relatively modern jet fighters, tanks, and were much stronger than the South Vietnamese (which is why South Vietnam needed help from first the French and then the USA).

Quote:
Tell it to the Taliban. Tell it to any of the many terrorist organizations on the planet.


Not to downplay mass shootings as an act of terror, but there's a difference between terrorist activity and actually successfully resisting an occupying power. (The IRA could tell you as much.) Afghanistan is sort of a special case because regional warlords have been actively cooperating with insurgent fighters.

Quote:
Hell tell it to the patriots who founded this country in blood!


Who were going to lose until the French (and Spanish, and Dutch) stepped in on the American side in 1778 - and there's a more than reasonable argument that Saratoga only happened because the British undercommitted troops to the colonies when they overestimated the strength they would get from loyalist militias.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dude, you cannot look at the history of insurgency and say that guns make no difference when a population elects to resist some kind of authority.

There is just no way.

Otherwise, the guy you are arguing with is sounding a bit paranoid and doomsdayish.

But yeah. That blatant dismissal of the difference an armed populace makes, or that weapons make for opposing an occupier just stands contrary to all available facts.

Hell, counter-insurgency is regarded as by far the hardest kind of warfare to attempt.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow. Armed insurgency in the US? That went down the rabbit hole quick...

To bring the thread back out, I’m going to paraphrase some arguments from a blog post I read earlier:

The notion that the debt ceiling or keeping government open are things to be bartered for a list of policies that lost in the last national election is absurd. Is there really a serious debate to be had over whether or not we should overturn health care reform laws passed in the normal course of the legislature doing its job in exchange for not shutting the federal government down?

The fundamental problem with an argument that the government ought to cease to run at all unless the minority party is able to dictate the terms by which it runs is that it would result in no functional ability to govern at all. The very premise of causing widespread economic or structural chaos to one's own country in exchange for what amount to ransom demands should be, must be, treated with revulsion and derided.

Go ahead and barter, run vicious ads against the other side, and/or hold out for your personal pet project. That is one thing and a normal way of legislating. But "we will not allow the government of the United States to operate at all unless our demands are met" is a super villain threat from a comic book, not a legitimate legislative maneuver. Annually making a threat to shutdown government if minority party demands are not met is an extremist position. If it becomes the norm for the minority party then we can expect nationwide shutdowns of government services on a regular, ever-increasing basis. That is no way to run a country.
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
LeeDambis wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You don't think a program which spends hundreds of billions of dollars has anything to do with the budget?


That's actually something the President said this week -- that Obamacare has nothing to do with the budget.


And dutifully repeated by his devotees, I guess.
No more then any other goverment program no. They are duty (and constitutionally bound apparently) to pay the governments debts. Not to try and use that debt to force through measure that congress has already decided upon by some back door method. Obamacare is law, and like any government program has to be funded, they can repeal it when they get a chance, but cannot start to decide to not pay for things that congress has voted on (and passed). If they feel the budget is too great they can reduce it. What they are going is saying it is OK to increase it, as long as we defund one program (and not even that, the defunding is a tactic, they actually want it's implementation delayed (again)). Hell a number of Republicans are happy to have a pipeline approved for support, this has fuck all to do with spending.

All this has done is split (and maybe ruptured) the Republican party, who (not the USA) have been hijacked by ultra conservative.

Umm. Maybe.

There's nothing strictly illegal or unconstitutional in the House refusing to fund provisions of the ACA. I view it as an unethical backdoor veto of previously-passed legislation, but obviously others are going to champion the "purse strings" of House Republicans. It's a valid argument even if I don't agree with it or the methodology behind it.

What I find thoroughly invalid (and downright dangerous) is House Republicans tying the defunding of Obamacare to an increase in the debt ceiling. It's idiotic on several levels. First due to the constitutional strictures I already mentioned. Second because it establishes once again that dysfunctional government could actually lead to default on the debt. Third because the Fourteenth Amendment was passed by the Republican Party over strenuous Democratic objections.

House Republicans have the power to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, but they don't have the constitutional authority to do so. AFAIK, the president would be perfectly within his constitutional rights to pay the debt through extra-legislative means if Congress doesn't ratify an extension. Yes, Congress controls the purse strings, but when you come right down to it Treasury is holding the purse.



It was 1868. I think we really can't relate the republicans of 1868 to the republicans of today. The republican party of today essentially came into existence with Reagan + "The abortion issue". In fact, I'd say both parties undergo significant changes every 50 years.

I agree with your other points so it's really a minor nit over your Third point.

I tie the birth of the modern Republican Party to the defection of Dixiecrats who felt betrayed by Johnson's push for the Civil Rights Act. Nixon's Southern Strategy, with George Wallace siphoning off otherwise anti-Republican votes, was its first successful manifestation (Goldwater also took five southern states in 1964, but he was trounced everywhere else except his home state). If not for Nixon's implosion over Vietnam, the Republican Party would likely have remained moderate-right rather than right-wing.

Yes, it's a fundamentally different party than it was in the aftermath of the Civil War, but the one part of that foundation that hasn't changed - at least in campaign rhetoric and in the public's perception - is that Republicans believe in paying the bills and fiscal responsibility. Bush II was an aberration, not a new manifestation of Republicanism. So the story goes...

unless and until these Republicans refuse to own up to the debts that they, as well as the Democrats, have piled up.




Interesting. I consider that as of Reagan, they became the party of "Guns AND Butter" and started running up huge deficits. They stopped being the party that pays its bills.

I don't see how you can look at the deficits they ran up under reagan, bush 1* and bush 2 and say they are fiscally conservative.


* bush 1 did try to pass some taxes and be fiscally responsible. I don't regret my vote for him.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.