Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Obama-Democrats won't hesitate to shut down the government

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What's truly amazing about it is how anyone could consider mandatory healthcare a good thing.

Is it hatred of the good or simply concrete bound apathy?

When I ask friends who are independent-leaning-statist (average college educated guys), they say this: "We who are middle class and who are usually employed get healthcare via our employers and this will be the case until we finally shift to Medicare. So, while we're forced to have coverage, it really does not impact us at all, because we already do and always will. So, the real impact of the law is that it forces poorer folk to get healthcare, but subsidizes them."

 

On the latter point, their argument is that such people either get hidden subsidies today (via E.R. visits and unpaid bills that are then charged to others). Also, they say, that some such people end up in bankruptcy, and the government ought to step in. 

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I ask friends who are independent-leaning-statist (average college educated guys), they say this: "We who are middle class and who are usually employed get healthcare via our employers and this will be the case until we finally shift to Medicare. So, while we're forced to have coverage, it really does not impact us at all, because we already do and always will. So, the real impact of the law is that it forces poorer folk to get healthcare, but subsidizes them."

 

On the latter point, their argument is that such people either get hidden subsidies today (via E.R. visits and unpaid bills that are then charged to others). Also, they say, that some such people end up in bankruptcy, and the government ought to step in. 

It's not like that's an entirely invalid argument. Pretty much everyone wants to have access to health-care. There are very few Americans willing to say: I don't want anything to do with the health-care system, I'm willing to take the chance of being left to die if anything bad happens, just to save the cost of insurance. The only reason why some of these people are nonetheless choosing to not have insurance is that the government is in fact already using physical force to provide emergency health-care, and even just quality of life health-care to anyone who really can't afford it.

 

So, having a limited, mandated insurance ("insurance" is what people call it, but it fits the definition of a "tax", not "insurance") that would cover those things would just be a measure aimed at eliminating the free rider problem previous regulations created. Morally, it would not be any different than the previous system. It's the government using force, just like it did before, to accomplish something they've been doing already. 

 

But that argument doesn't really cover Obamacare, because Obamacare does a lot more than just that. Most of it  an expansion of the use of force, and an amazingly stupid waste money and diminishing of the overall quality of health-care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody thought of an endgame here? Clearly the Demos are going to do the exact same thing if this works and the Republicans are successful in getting any concessions. This basically means that this event will be de rigueur whenever one party does not control both houses and the white house, which is to say most of the time. In effect it gives a line-item veto of any law passed by Congress by any party that holds at lease one house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any rational person would blame the party who originally threatened a shutdown (Republicans) for that shutdown subsequently happening. Duh. It seems like a lot of Objectivists, like usual, appear to be Republicans.

 

What is really tragic is that this is now affecting the possibility of a debt default. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the tea party loons (and unfortunately some Objectivists and other small govt people) would LOVE to see a debt default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any rational person would blame the party who originally threatened a shutdown (Republicans) for that shutdown subsequently happening. Duh. It seems like a lot of Objectivists, like usual, appear to be Republicans.

 

What is really tragic is that this is now affecting the possibility of a debt default. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the tea party loons (and unfortunately some Objectivists and other small govt people) would LOVE to see a debt default.

 

I too am alarmed by this. When I started to study Objectivism 25 years ago, it wasn't like this. Now it appears that many "objectivists" exist only to put a slightly more principled spin on Republican talking points. Certainly not all of them are like that, but many are, and they dominate the political debate.

 

Of course 25 years ago the Democrats were the party of morons and Republicans were "conservative" and thoughtful, careful, and valued intelligence (obviously I'm generalizing here). Now the Republicans appeal to the lowest common denominator. Many Objectivists have followed them all the way down there, and in those depths they've met many new "friends" who know, just know, that John Galt was really a Christian in his heart, and that "freedom" means being free to spend your social security check on any sort of dangerous weapon you wish to spend it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I too share the concern and alarm for the trend among many Objectivists who are barely distinguishable from conservative Republicans. However, since the Republican party has historically brought about drastic increases in taxes and government spending and members have always raised the debt ceiling, I fail to see what this has to do with supporting a repudiation of the national debt. No Republican that I know of, except for the heroic Ron Paul had come forward with a plan to liquidate government assets and reduce the national debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I too share the concern and alarm for the trend among many Objectivists who are barely distinguishable from conservative Republicans.

Your level of concern and alarm should merit at least a single name of an Objectivist who is barely distinguishable from Republicans, and if you're feeling especially honest, would also demonstrate how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any rational person would blame the party who originally threatened a shutdown (Republicans) for that shutdown subsequently happening. Duh.

That's really not a very good argument, is it?

Here's the GOP party-line on this: the system we have requires that members of the legislative continuously sign-off on government spending, and that the President not veto this. The House signed off on a spending bill that said that all spending can go ahead, except for any spending on Obamacare. The Senate disagrees, and voted this down. If the Senate had voted the bill through, and the President had allowed it to go through too, all government spending would go through, but Obamacare would not be funded. So, it is the Senate and the President who have insisted that all of government shut down unless the house agrees to fund Obamacare.

 

Do you have a response to that?

 

To my mind, saying that any particular person or party is "responsible for the government shutdown" is mostly a way to score publicity points. Both the Democrats and the GOP have it in their power to get all of government going if they're willing to give in to the other on Obamacare. The GOP isn't even holding out for anything substantial now. That's not to say that the President should agree with them, from his viewpoint. If I were he, with his values and priorities, I would refuse to negotiate at this stage. 

 

This is how democracies negotiate internally. It is noisy and messy, and the blame that is thrown around is part of the negotiation.The President has the strong hand, and so he's not blinking, and he is standing in the way of opening the government just as much as the GOP is, because he thinks he's going to win this negotiation. 

 

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how democracies negotiate internally. It is noisy and messy, and the blame that is thrown around is part of the negotiation.

 

This is what I've been thinking through all this. To me, if you have supposedly opposing parties, stuff like this should be the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I've been thinking through all this. To me, if you have supposedly opposing parties, stuff like this should be the norm.

Yes,  and ultimately voters will decide whom they want to blame. At another level, it is not just parties negotiating, but the population itself. I have some colleagues who are solidly GOP and others who are solidly for Obamacare. In a sense, these two groups are trying to negotiate with each other. Part of the problem for the GOP-wing is that they did not prepare more independent voters for this.

 

Obamacare barely squeaked through the Congress. (If Ted Kennedy had died a few months earlier than he did, who knows if we'd have Obamacare today.) Despite that, a majority has assumed that it is water under the bridge.  The GOP kept voting it down, but it was clear those votes could not become law. Therefore they were seen as symbolic. If the GOP wanted to take a stand against funding it, they might have had a chance -- with the public-relations -- if they'd always made a credible threat about not providing funds. If they'd managed to convince people that Obamacare was still up in the air, and depended on a legislative fight, they'd be in a stronger position. Not easy to do: the party with a President tends to set the agenda du jour. 

 

It would be great if Obamacare can be derailed, but I don't see any chance of that now. It is likely that a majority of the house (almost all Democrats, plus some Republicans) would vote for funding the government without asking for changes in Obamacare. Given that, I don't see how the anti-Obamacare side can win the negotiation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate: That post dropped a staggering amount of context.

Our debt in America is excessive and growing faster than our means to repay it; barring something truly radical, a default is inevitable. Those responsible are evaders of both parties (although on this point, while republicans have done their share of spending, they aren't even comparable to the democrats).

Furthermore, in this specific issue, the alternative offered was shutdown or else defund obamacare. I see no ambiguity in their moral relation and- if obama acts in accordance with his own morality- neither does he!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no, the republicans aren't exclusively or even primarily responsible; this is the collectivists' handiwork.

Now if you want to discuss gay marriage, abortion, prostitution, drugs, gambling, censorship, the draft or laundering tax money to religious entities then we can discuss all of the evils proliferated by conservatives at large. But this is the fault of liberals, point blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow: a republican objectivist (not a term you used; running on implication) would be a semirational objectivist which is a contradiction in terms.

The defining characteristic of a republican is the mental division between church and state; rational and mystic neatly compartmentalized away from each other and the subsequent mind body absurdity.

Any objectivist who, by definition, is willing to analyze it, would plainly recognize that "faith" is evasion and the attempt to insulate it from the rest of ones conceptual framework is impossible to achieve, self destructive and intellectually dishonest.

So the fundamental difference is that, lingering premises aside (we've all been raised irrationally and I doubt that anyone here never automated a contradiction), when they are consciously examining an issue, a true objectivist lets no observed fallacy remain unchecked; a republican deliberately does.

---

Anyway. I'm sure this isn't anything new to you and there are republicans in the world who call themselves objectivist. I just wanted to point out that they're not.

I think that an objectivist can honestly disagree with rand- but nobody can hold reason as an absolute on the weekdays, only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good deal of the republican talking points are right; we need more freedom and less controls. I don't think there is any side of any issue an objectivist shouldn't take, if it seems logical by their current knowledge; it's about the method used to arrive at a certain political opinion that counts, and not the opinion itself.

And if and when someone hijacks rands insights to justify their particular brand of irrationality, we should make a point of clarifying things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really not a very good argument, is it?

Here's the GOP party-line on this: the system we have requires that members of the legislative continuously sign-off on government spending, and that the President not veto this. The House signed off on a spending bill that said that all spending can go ahead, except for any spending on Obamacare. The Senate disagrees, and voted this down. If the Senate had voted the bill through, and the President had allowed it to go through too, all government spending would go through, but Obamacare would not be funded. So, it is the Senate and the President who have insisted that all of government shut down unless the house agrees to fund Obamacare.

 

Do you have a response to that?

 

To my mind, saying that any particular person or party is "responsible for the government shutdown" is mostly a way to score publicity points. Both the Democrats and the GOP have it in their power to get all of government going if they're willing to give in to the other on Obamacare. The GOP isn't even holding out for anything substantial now. That's not to say that the President should agree with them, from his viewpoint. If I were he, with his values and priorities, I would refuse to negotiate at this stage. 

 

This is how democracies negotiate internally. It is noisy and messy, and the blame that is thrown around is part of the negotiation.The President has the strong hand, and so he's not blinking, and he is standing in the way of opening the government just as much as the GOP is, because he thinks he's going to win this negotiation. 

 

 

Imagine a Republican president had a package of tax cuts which were unfunded (for example George Bush Jnr). Now imagine if the Democrats in such a situation threatened to not pass a budget (and therefore shutdown the government) unless such tax cuts were removed. Whichever party decides to try to get their own way by shutting down the government (in this fictitious example the Democrats, and in actual reality the Republicans) is a complete disgrace.

 

Yes,  and ultimately voters will decide whom they want to blame. 

 

Who do you blame for the shutdown and why? To say that this is what a democracy does and voters will decide may be true but it is trivial. I think the logic of whoever refuses to pass a budget (unless they get their way) being to blame is perfect.

 

Kate: That post dropped a staggering amount of context.

Our debt in America is excessive and growing faster than our means to repay it; barring something truly radical, a default is inevitable. Those responsible are evaders of both parties (although on this point, while republicans have done their share of spending, they aren't even comparable to the democrats).

Furthermore, in this specific issue, the alternative offered was shutdown or else defund obamacare. I see no ambiguity in their moral relation and- if obama acts in accordance with his own morality- neither does he!

 

Default is not inevitable. What usually happens in a mixed economy is that moderate inflation eats away at the real value of the debt. In this context what needs to be combined with this is modest tax rises and spending cuts that are agreed by both parties. Not one party demanding a spending cut or else they threaten to shutdown the government or worse default on the debt by not raising the ceiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who do you blame for the shutdown and why?

The president and the Congress together are responsible because they could not reach a negotiated settlement.

I think the logic of whoever refuses to pass a budget (unless they get their way) being to blame is perfect.

The GOP would be quite willing to pass a budget that did not include any money for Obamacare. From their perspective, the Dems and the President are standing in the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1- a default, which harms people who voluntarily lent to the government, is better than inflation, which picks the pocket of innocent civilians.

2- this isn't a spending cut, it's a massive raise.

3- moderate cuts aren't going to come anywhere near fixing this. As for tax hikes, I'm not sure if there's enough money in America.

Hasn't the debt passed our gdp? Well, I suppose we could inflate the difference.

4- republicans gave them an option; democrats chose the shutdown.

5- Why in galt's name should the debt ceiling be raised? Please enlighten me; I mustve missed something inbetween "there's too much debt" and "have some MORE"!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The president and the Congress together are responsible because they could not reach a negotiated settlement.

The GOP would be quite willing to pass a budget that did not include any money for Obamacare. From their perspective, the Dems and the President are standing in the way.

 

So in other words they are unwilling to pass a budget unless they get their own way. The same cannot be said of Obama because the ACA is already the law. What you are saying is true but trivial so why say it? Better to make a reasoned judgement than equivocation and stating the obvious.

 

The time to block legislation is before it is made law. Once it is made law, to threaten to shutdown the government and to threaten to default if you don't get your own way is deeply irresponsible. The Republicans LOST as soon as the ACA became law. Threatening a shutdown and default after they have lost is ridiculous. As an aside, I do think most Americans see this and will punish the Republicans for it.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, social security checks will be curtailed. Then the t-party people will elect Fidel Castro after the ensuing shit storm since they didn't mean that sort of return to the 1700s.

 

Something like 60% of Americans polled say we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. While I'm tempted to say, "brothers, you asked for it" the mess would cost us a fortune to clean up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...