So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[A'isha]

By your standards, basically everything in politics becomes "political terrorism", including the president's refusal to negotiate with Republicans on this.

There is nothing to negotiate. The Republicans are making only demands, and no offers.

 

[Dymanic]

I'm pretty sure the GOP trying to undercut the ACA has something to do with it.

I'm pretty sure the GOP trying to undercut the ACA has something to do with it.

The GOP lost the last election. An inevitable consequence of that is that some policies will be implemented that they won't like. It's the way our system was designed to work. They're trying to devise a workaround; some way to stay on top even though the votes say they aren't. Holding the country's economy hostage is outside the bounds of what is provided for in the Constitution. If they are given an inch here, they'll take a mile, and they'll keep doing it with issue after issue. The ACA just happens to top their agenda right now. We happen to have a President who appreciates the threat this poses to our system of government, and has the backbone not to back down.

Make no mistake: this is the greatest threat our system has faced since the Civil War.

 

[Dymanic]

"Political terrorism" is a nonsense term, which betrays nonsense thinking.

It's a metaphor, Zig. Metaphors can be useful, but if you're going to go all "Mister Literal", then all metaphors become nonsense terms.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Holding the country's economy hostage is outside the bounds of what is provided for in the Constitution.

No, it is provided for in the Constitution.

This isn't even like complaints that the filibuster violates the constitution. There is no provision that the lower house must cower before the Senate or President.

 

[A'isha]

No, it is provided for in the Constitution.

Where?

There is no provision that the lower house must cower before the Senate or President.

You have that backwards.

 

[Travis]

This really isn't about the ACA, guys. It's about the integrity of our political system.

For me it is about the ACA. I wouldn't be nearly as angry about what they are doing if it wasn't to do something that would directly harm me.

Are you angry at the heavily democrat controlled state you live in for not having a program in the last decade to help you? To be honest I am amazed that you do not qualify for something there.

Of course I'm angry. This state has the most inefficient and ridiculous system of management I've come across in democracy. I mean we can't raise taxes without a freaking plebiscite on it to pass with a supermajority. Talk about a dumb idea.

 

[Bob001]

Do you believe there is such a thing as a non-partisan independent commission?
I don't doubt there is some gerrymandering (done by both sides not just the evil republicans) but is there any data on how many seats are affected by it?

As noted, Democratic House candidates received 1.4 million more votes in 2012 than Republicans, but Republicans control the House by 33 seats. That by itself should raise some eyebrows. At the very least, it looks like some Republican districts must have fewer voters than some Democratic districts, but House districts are supposed to have roughly equal populations. The other possibility/likelihood is that Democratic voters were concentrated into as few districts as possible.

Yes, I think there are non-partisan commissions. Most functions of government are largely non-partisan. Nobody asks what party you support when you sign up for Social Security or Medicare or file a lawsuit. You could have boards with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats or a committee of state judges, and you could have clearly defined neutral rules, like districts will be as compact as possible consistent with equal distribution of votes. Redistricting is based on census counts; maybe the Census Bureau itself could draw the lines. Almost anything would be better than letting the majority party rig the rules for itself.

 

[Dymanic]

For me it is about the ACA. I wouldn't be nearly as angry about what they are doing if it wasn't to do something that would directly harm me.

Well, I'm going to suggest then that you give more thought to the long term consequences for the way business is conducted in Washington. This is neither the only nor the last issue that has the potential to directly impact you. Running this place is tricky enough without having the decision making process converted to perpetual crisis mode.

 

[triforcharity]

Both sides are to blame. Both sides didn't want to work together. This should have been taken care of a LONG time ago. It's amazing, we're supposed to have this Obama Care, but we can't even pay the bills we have. It's time to figure out what needs to be done to get our budget under control. BOTH sides. House and Senate.

 

[Spindrift]

Both sides are to blame. Both sides didn't want to work together. This should have been taken care of a LONG time ago. It's amazing, we're supposed to have this Obama Care, but we can't even pay the bills we have. It's time to figure out what needs to be done to get our budget under control. BOTH sides. House and Senate.

No. In this case it is not both sides. The Republicans can easily pass a bill in which both sides get the exact same thing and not cost billions by having a shutdown.

 

[Magyar]

How can you blame them for using the procedures in place to advance their agenda? I mean, if you grant that they actually believe it's the right thing to do, why wouldn't they try everything they can?

The problem with your theory is that the THE plan is 100% a republican one. The only reason they are opposing it now is because a dino ( i say that because less than 15 years ago Obama would have been touted a poster child for the gop as smart new black face foy the party) has succeeded in putting it together where. The gnewt and other "brilliant" white gop leaders failed. But instead they would rather torpedo their own plan and screw the country than have a dem succeed where they failed.

 

[rustypouch]

The problem with your theory is that the THE plan is 100% a republican one. The only reason they are opposing it now is because a dino ( i say that because less than 15 years ago Obama would have been touted a poster child for the gop as smart new black face foy the party) has succeeded in putting it together where. The gnewt and other "brilliant" white gop leaders failed.

Yep.

I still don't quite understand why the ACA was a great idea when proposed by the Heritage Foundation, and implemented by Romney, but now it's the worst thing ever and a reason to destroy the country.

 

[DavidJames]

No. In this case it is not both sides. The Republicans can easily pass a bill in which both sides get the exact same thing and not cost billions by having a shutdown.

You're wasting your time.

It's become painfully clear who understands how the process works and who doesn't. When it's time to negotiate the content of laws and proposals and when after it's been decided, to pay for them.

I've tried to use analogies to our home lives. We determine what we will spend when we decide to make the purchase. After that point, it's our responsibility to pay for it. In this case the Republicans, and only the Republicans, have decided they don't want to pay for things they (within the process) have already agreed to.

Further, in one of the proposals they wanted to including paying for something (Keystone) that wasn't even agreed to yet.

But partisan ignorant ideologues don't get.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

Yep.

I still don't quite understand why the ACA was a great idea when proposed by the Heritage Foundation, and implemented by Romney, but now it's the worst thing ever and a reason to destroy the country.

Unfortunately the Tea Party happened.

 

[Travis]

Well, I'm going to suggest then that you give more thought to the long term consequences for the way business is conducted in Washington. This is neither the only nor the last issue that has the potential to directly impact you. Running this place is tricky enough without having the decision making process converted to perpetual crisis mode.

Well I'd certainly be angry still if it wasn't about the ACA. But if that was the case I doubt I'd be having the fantasies I'm currently having of starting an anti-Republican militia hellbent on disproportionate retribution.

 

[Polaris]

Well I'd certainly be angry still if it wasn't about the ACA. But if that was the case I doubt I'd be having the fantasies I'm currently having of starting an anti-Republican militia hellbent on disproportionate retribution.

The old 2nd Amendment solution, aye?

 

[Mister Earl]

Both sides are to blame. Both sides didn't want to work together. This should have been taken care of a LONG time ago. It's amazing, we're supposed to have this Obama Care, but we can't even pay the bills we have. It's time to figure out what needs to be done to get our budget under control. BOTH sides. House and Senate.

Let's say I block your driveway. You can't get to the road without going over your lawn because a van I rented is completely blocking the way out. I offer to move the van for a thousand bucks. You, quite rightly, refuse. I then offer to move it for eight hundred dollars. You refuse again. Then I say that you're just as liable as me for not being able to get out to the street, because you completely refuse to negotiate like a civil person would.

This is the Republican game.

 

[DGM]

Well I'd certainly be angry still if it wasn't about the ACA. But if that was the case I doubt I'd be having the fantasies I'm currently having of starting an anti-Republican militia hellbent on disproportionate retribution.

Why now? Why have you not done this already (considering the state you live in)?

Massachusetts did it.

 

[marplots]

The problem with your theory is that the THE plan is 100% a republican one. The only reason they are opposing it now is because a dino ( i say that because less than 15 years ago Obama would have been touted a poster child for the gop as smart new black face foy the party) has succeeded in putting it together where. The gnewt and other "brilliant" white gop leaders failed. But instead they would rather torpedo their own plan and screw the country than have a dem succeed where they failed.

There's a nuance here. The current batch of Republicans includes some that were elected after the ACA was passed. That bunch didn't vote for it and might have been elected on a platform that included getting rid of it.

 

[uke2se]

Both sides are to blame. Both sides didn't want to work together. This should have been taken care of a LONG time ago. It's amazing, we're supposed to have this Obama Care, but we can't even pay the bills we have. It's time to figure out what needs to be done to get our budget under control. BOTH sides. House and Senate.

No, both sides are not to blame. The Republicans are to blame, and only the Republicans.