U.S. Government shutdown - how does it work ?

  On 10/2/2013 at 8:52 PM, roasty said:

 

  On 10/2/2013 at 7:25 PM, MisterE said:

 

  On 10/2/2013 at 3:01 PM, jules said:

too bad obama can't suspend all their pay. or fire their asses.

i agree. too bad. checks and balances is the problem here! we need a dictatorship all the way, right buddy? blast that pesky constitution!

 

The constitution here specifies how to handle situations when parliament can't reach a consensus, showing a true testament to the writing of the constitution and forethought that went into it *smug*

 

it's easy to be smug when the US constitution laid down framework that pretty much didn't exist before it, and your country had the opportunity to look at ours when deciding how to write theirs. it's also funny how nobody seemed to mind that the democrats in senate have failed to reach this same consensus for over 3 yrs, including a year where they controlled both the house AND senate. yet somehow it happens this year, and it all falls on republicans, even though they sent a bill to senate which would fund gov, but the dems didn't like that bill so won't pass it. yet this gov shutdown is all on repubs. because they are exercising the authority granted to them by the constitution to do their job exactly how it is written for them. reid is the one who has said he won't consider any compromise. but because the liberal media overlords tell us that repubs are to blame, plenty of people parrot it. even though this is only what, the 4th year that the democrat controlled senate has failed to pass a budget? even though the repubs gave them a bill that would fund government and even though dems are the ones who openly, publicly refuse to compromise. and even though the maneuver to gut obamacare from the funding, by the republican house, cannot, by anyone with even a modicum of intellectual integrity, be said to be in any way worse than what the democrats did in the first place when they rammed the bill (obamacare) through into becoming a law when they had control of both houses. something which the big bad republicans who are constantly vilified by liberal news and entertainment media alike, cannot be said to have done themselves. that is, ramrod a bill this radically transformational, which is to their own personal liking (or things that have been attributed to them as being what they want) but not supported by a majority of the country nor by a significant amount in the minority party. the republicans have had control of both houses for years at a time recently, even while having the executive branch, and guess what bitches? abortion...? still legal. welfare? still going. black people? still not slaves. gay people? still alive.

 

this should call into question, in the minds of anyone with the smallest amount of integrity or curiosity about how things work, the supposition that republicans wanted those things to be done away with, OR the idea that they are willing to push their personal feelings about how things should be onto the people with little actual support of what they are doing. like the democrats, on the other hand, have shown themselves more than willing to do.

 

some people consider it a stroke of genius that the constitution says that any budget bills must originate in the house of reps, which has representatives with the shorter term compared to senators. the idea being that 'the people' should have their finger a bit more on the pulse as to what 'their fucking money' should be spent on. if they don't like what their elected representatives are spending their money on, they can vote them out sooner. of course to feel that way, you have to believe that the job of these representatives.. is to represent. the people. who elected them. seems to me that 'the people' spoke, back in 2010, when they replaced plenty of dems in the house with repubs, largely because of obamacare being rammed through without the approval of a majority of 'the people'. that's the constitution working as it should.

Edited October 2, 2013 by MisterE

poor gop. they mean so well....bad bad liberals.

 

and why is it that "the people" agree with the individual parts of obamacare but not when you call it "obamacare"?

 

  Quote

 

There are lots of confused and confusing data here, and it's difficult to say anything definitive about how Americans feel about the healthcare law signed by President Obama in 2010. As I found more than a year ago, they don't like the law overall, even while they approve many of its measures.

Some Democrats may say that this points in their favor, but the same dynamic of a differential between the backing people will give for a broad proposition as opposed to their support for individual policies could be said to operate in the case of gun control. Thus two Colorado state senators were recently recalled over a gun control law whose individual provisions many said they liked.

Overall, Americans clearly don't know enough about Obamacare. Of course, they know just as little about the Affordable Care Act – but to the extent that they are less hostile to a law that doesn't bear President Obama's name, it does appear that the embrace of the term "Obamacare" by Democrats and the White House was a tactic that has not worked out.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthcare-obamacare-affordable-care-act

 

"The people" is a silly concept.

i guess it's hard for the people to know about something that was kept under wraps from them all the way up until it was voted on. or something that even when it is made available, is such a monstrosity, with such a mass of pages full of loopholes, exemptions, and spots left open for later definition, like any good law should be. and why have they delayed portions of it from taking effect? couldn't be to avoid losing more dems from house/senate in the upcoming 2014 midterm elections, after people get a better idea of what it really is all about, could it?

 

you're silly godel. you and eugene and other liberal minded people like you who think people are too stupid to know what's best for them and therefore need a dictator. either you are too stupid to have considered the possibility that the rich who have been in control have kept information from the people with the specific goal of keeping them uninformed, or you just don't care and think dictatorships are tops. more and more liberals are showing themselves to have these types of thoughts. which is pretty silly, considering that whole 1% thing they concocted a while back.

 

let me get this straight-

when it comes to MONEY, you don't like it being consolidated in a smaller percentage of the population.

 

but when it comes to POWER..

 

you want it concentrated down to a small group of people. you want that group of people to be able to dictate who should get what operations or health care. you want them to have control over our actual BODIES. you want them to redistribute wealth earned by the working class to those above and below that class. they've got some of you libs so afraid of overpopulation, probably just because those wealthy fucks are worried that they and their wealthy progeny might run out of fuel for their own personal private jets one day, and not because they care about the environment at all, that they actually have some of you probably at least secretly agreeing that they SHOULD get to dictate who can reproduce, which i touched on in a previous post and which nobody wants to touch.

 

i agree that the people are pretty ignorant of things that are going on. which is why i enjoy watching recent events unfold that bring these secret personal wishes of liberals and ruling dems to the surface, so that those ignorant of those desires can see them on full display. how many lefties in this thread alone have expressed remorse at the US not being something more like a dictatorship? please. tell us how you really feel, finally. do go on.

I pay almost $200/month for a plan that only covers emergency room treatment.

  On 10/2/2013 at 10:17 PM, A/D said:

I pay almost $200/month for a plan that only covers emergency room treatment.

and your intelligent, thinking mind can only conceive of one possible solution to that problem, which is to give direct control of your body to your government. no possible way the gov having a direct say in what health care you can receive could ever be abused for political reasons, is there? no way the NSA collecting data from social network sites and phone companies about average, non-terrorist citizens, for who knows what reason exactly, could ever factor in. this couldn't at all be a slippery slope scenario where one day they dictate what foods you are allowed to eat, who you are allowed to have sexual relations with, if you are allowed to reproduce, if you can drink or smoke, or etc etc etc. they are offering 'free' goodies, so why hesitate or ask questions?!

Can we get back to the part where we shut down the government because of this?

  On 10/2/2013 at 9:28 PM, MisterE said:

[the republicans have had control of both houses for years at a time recently, even while having the executive branch, and guess what bitches? abortion...? still legal. welfare? still going. black people? still not slaves. gay people? still alive.this should call into question, in the minds of anyone with the smallest amount of integrity or curiosity about how things work, the supposition that republicans wanted those things to be done away with, OR the idea that they are willing to push their personal feelings about how things should be onto the people with little actual support of what they are doing. like the democrats, on the other hand, have shown themselves more than willing to do.s

irl lol

you're going full retard mr.e, what body control ffs ? the essential idea as far as i understand is for everyone to chip in order to built an efficient healthcare system, nothing will prevent you from going to a private clinic if you're feeling paranoid. this route is taken because it's been proven effective in many other countries.

  On 10/2/2013 at 10:41 PM, Alcofribas said:

irl lol

the lol already kind of implies it being irl. do you actually have something to say this time or are you just going to go with your standard 'lol' post that you think has the power to discredit a post all by itself?

  On 10/2/2013 at 10:45 PM, eugene said:

you're going full retard mr.e, what body control ffs ? the essential idea as far as i understand is for everyone to chip in order to built an efficient healthcare system, nothing will prevent you from going to a private clinic if you're feeling paranoid. this route is taken because it's been proven effective in many other countries.

hi eugene. sorry but i'm not going to lose any sleep over some idiot on the internet's opinion of me, who also revealed himself previously to believe my country maybe very well should be a dictatorship. instead i'll think to myself 'that guy thinks I'M a retard! haha'

 

i mean, i've seen more than enough of your posts which are sickeningly naive and in total disbelief of how the US gov wants to control more and more aspects of the lives of its citizens, that your opinion somehow means less than 0 to me.

Edited October 2, 2013 by MisterE

lol

  On 10/2/2013 at 8:43 PM, olo said:

Might not apply to you, but we used to take our kids to the local public health department & pay for vaccines a nickle on the dollar. Way more expensive through our family doctor. By hundreds more expensive.

 

 

Most vaccines are - I called around and it just wasn't covered. I mean, going to community college is optional, but considering how many people at low-paying jobs are trying to get technical education to make a decent living, $130 isn't exactly a drop in the bucket.

I don't understand the bit about the middle class paying for everyone. This article seems to indicate that the subsidies outlaid by the federal government will outweigh the revenue for the middle class (those making under 200,000 per year).

 

Also, a government shutdown is not the way to get a law repealed. This is a law correct? Got passed by the required bodies, it even underwent the supreme court litmus test. So it seems the correct way to go about this would be to either try and amend the law or get the law repealed through the correct channels.

 

ah fuck it: lol

 

 

 

is mr e also hathathat or whatever his name is on beak? i seriously can't differentiate between all these different trolls.

really ultra weird to me that after all the horrendous civil liberties erosions since 9/11 the 'forced healthcare' angle is the one republicans are choosing to go with full force. It's so insanely hypocritical and sad I don't even know what to say.

It's the fucking insurance companies lobbying. Seriously, isn't it? Why isn't that commonly accepted by people. Stop blaming it on the fucking GOP. It's the insurance corps

I can safely say the non-government Eno-Weed medical plan works for me.

I haven't stepped foot in a hospital since I was 7 years old, and i used to skip the mandatory vacination days in school

 

basically i don't know enough about bamacare to have an opinion on it but i'd probably be rump riled if i had to go over my <6k annual budget for something I'd never used

Edited October 3, 2013 by Cryptowen

*breaks cryps stepping foot with a huge sledge hammer and drops him off at the nearest hospital*

  On 10/3/2013 at 2:26 AM, luke viia said:

I can safely say the non-government Eno-Weed medical plan works for me.

Troof!

* install huge soundsystem to play eno weed on a f-ing big set of speakers such that the entire hill baths in its sounds*

  On 10/3/2013 at 7:01 AM, goDel said:

* install huge soundsystem to play eno weed on a f-ing big set of speakers such that the entire hill baths in its sounds*

watch out for nulls though!!

genuine Q

 

from where does the federal government get the money to pay the subs?

subs? as in subwoofers? fed needs more bass, innit ;D

subsidies for the 50Hz goodness

good to see this thread back in the groove again ;D