This is a valid response to every post in this entire thread.
USA Federal government: CLOSED
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
not the part where this crisis is wholly orchestrated by the Congressional Republicans. that's very simple.
Yes and no. I agree that we've gotten to this precise point due to specific actions by Congressional Republicans (the specific tying of the defunding of the ACA movement via parliamentary procedure to the separate federal operations budget as a way of doing an end-run around actual voting procedure), but there is validity in the criticism that Democrats are specifically playing hardball as a response. Whether they should or not is a matter of opinion (many of us clearly think they should, as a matter of principle and not encouraging the kind of behavior the House GOP is favoring), but that they are is undeniable.
The House GOP decision to go nuclear, as it were, can also be clearly tied to the fact that the ACA was functionally passed along completely partisan lines due to temporary Democrat control of all three decision-making authorities (House, Senate, WH). The popular GOP talking point that there was no negotiation is completely untrue (the GOP was initially deeply involved in the bill development process until direction came from on high to take a partisan counter stance), but it is still very much within the rights of Representatives to change their minds for whatever reason they wish, partisan or otherwise. This partisan-ness is also why in the 3.5 years since the bill originally passed both houses and was signed into law, the GOP has been satisfied with voting 40 times to repeal the law without negotiation and the Democrats have been satisfied with sitting back on their heels without trying to dig into what can be fixed to address criticisms and critical flaws.
So while the GOP is very clearly to blame for our current specific circumstances, the polarization that both sides have been contributing to over the last few years made for an atmosphere that was very favorable for this kind of action. I'm not saying that things would necessarily have been different if Democrats had made a greater effort to reach out while GOP members were playing the repeal game to stoke the home fires of their campaign coffers, but I don't think it's especially valid to say Congressional Democrats don't bear any blame.
I disagree!
For those who haven't heard:
A MI-based company reaches out to lend a helping hand through some hard times.
It's not a joke.
--Patrick
A MI-based company reaches out to lend a helping hand through some hard times.
It's not a joke.
--Patrick
should be for all congress, so they can go fuck themselves
i do really mean this, but it is kind of telling that despite us having really wildly different ends of the spectrum, it is a little nice that we both really fucking hate almost everyone in congress
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
...or I will at least cheer him on.
--Patrick
This article makes me curious enough that I want to investigate History and test the validity of the claims.
The maths that saw the US shutdown coming
(FWIW, I found the ideas of Hari Seldon very interesting, too)
--Patrick
The maths that saw the US shutdown coming
(FWIW, I found the ideas of Hari Seldon very interesting, too)
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Interesting. It reminds me of some half-formed ideas I've had in the past about times of turmoil coinciding with lower class oversaturation, but obviously this guy has, literally, done all the math. So basically, the valve we need to release steam from this pressure cooker is another massive world war with millions of casualties lest the government collapse
In seriousness, though, I also am intrigued with what he has to say about existing forms of democracy not being able to keep up with political demand now that society is interconnected and networked in real time. He says decentralization is required, as distributed systems are better able to handle the fluidity with a better responsiveness that people have come to expect from everything now. Well, I'm all for decentralization. One can have TOO much direct democracy, however. A panicked electorate, if plugged in to the democracytron in real time, can turn a whole nation to a bad idea through knee jerk reaction. It even happens now, under a Republic.
Last edited:
You can already watch this happen on Wall Street. Computers which are plugged into The Market at hundreds of times the speed of "real time" fall into and out of these bad ideas faster than the eye can see.
--Patrick
Yah, I heard about that. Afraid I can't follow my way through all the doubletalk, but lotsa people certainly don't seem terribly happy about it.
--Patrick
I've been saying for years that we're on the same track as the Roman Empire and the British Empire in terms of overestimating our survivability as the biggest dog on the block.
I too, loved the Foundation series and found that Hari Seldon's ideas aren't that unthinkable if one has a good enough understanding of psychology, economics, politics and history.
I think the thing is... who would be the next big dog? I don't see any nation standing up to the US militarily. Economically? China could if it survives the eventually revolution it'll take to oust the communists, but that's still undecided. I suppose it could end up like most cyber punk fiction and end up with the corporations in charge.
Really though, what -I- am more interested in is what we're going to do once it becomes possible to automate service industry jobs cheaply and effectively. We're quickly reaching the point where it's entirely possible that we'll have vast swaths of people we simply don't -need- to work.
Assuming there is a revolution. Don't make the mistake of taking protests or dissatisfaction with the Chinese government as a sign that people want it overthrown.
As to the second part of your post...well I suppose we'll have to see what the unions say.
Don't kid yourself. There WILL be a point when ether the government of China is going to have to stop being so authoritarian AND communist, especially if they want to grow their economy into something that does more than export cheap products for first world nations. The only question is whether this will be a natural evolution of the ruling party (and thus a peaceful change) or something else.
China's going to change. We're just not sure WHAT it's going to change into or how it'll happen.
Dave
Staff member
It means that the republicans changed the rules so that only boehner and whomever he appoints can reopen the government, even though up until October 1, 2013 it was the privilege of ANY house member to start the motions to do so. Those of you who are saying it's the democrats fault for this? Your points have become invalid as this is concrete evidence to the contrary.
There isn't going to be a revolution. There will be a stronger class division, but China keeps people in the bottom rung of that division ignorant and for the most part complacent. They don't need to change very much to keep going the way they like.
You mean overtly as opposed to using political middlemen?
And it's all nice and legal. Fucking hurray!
I think you overestimate the degree to which China is still communist in anything but name. A one-party system, sure, but it's not really all that more oligarchical than the US' 2 party system or even that of parliamentary democracies like ours, these days. As far as the marketplace goes, China is well on its way to out-capitalism-ing the US.
Other than that, most of the current up-and-cioming countries (Brazil, India, whatever) rely too much on Western consumption to move their economies. We'll see, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we ended up in a power vacuum for a decade or two before a new group or nation comes to the fore. I'm just afraid it might be actual corporatism as multinationals become bigger, more important and more all-encompassing than national governments. I don't think anyone can consider Red Mars/Blue Mars/Green Mars style terran politics as a good goal to strive for.
I got that this was the end effect, but it's all that talk about "privileged" and other vocabulary that I don't follow. They all have specific meanings when used in congressional context, so while I get the plot, I don't know the story.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
In essence, when there's a stalemate of this sort, before October 1 ANYONE could call for the senate bill to come to a vote - which has the votes to pass and open the government. But the rule change prohibits anyone but boehner or his chosen people to call for the vote, effectively changing longstanding rules specifically to keep the government closed and not bring this to a vote.
They better enjoy that little party while it lasts. Even the bulk of republicans are starting to get cold feet about holding the government hostage as a bargaining chip against Obamacare. You can be damn sure that that addendum will be reworked as soon as everything's back up and running.
Necronic
Staff member
That is pretty apalling.
It does make them appear like they are more interested in prolonging the problem than in finding a solution.
--Patrick
Considering their only solution after failing to defund is delay for a year, does that surprise anyone?
In New York, they call that one "the Shelly Silver".
Dave
Staff member
Like it would be difficult to have something like that made in the week and a half after the rule change? Does this somehow invalidate the report? I notice a startling lack of rebuttal.
GasBandit
Staff member
No no, no rebuttal. Clearly the republicans changed the rules to give themselves every procedural advantage in making sure they couldn't be forced out of the shutdown before they got... well, whatever it is they want, since it seems to change daily. But let's not kid ourselves that the other side hasn't/doesn't/wouldn't behave in the exact same manner.