Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Hall

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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So the Republican-run House sent a funding bill to the Democrat-run Senate that omits support for Obamacare, and the Senate sent it back without any other proposals than adding back in funding for Obamacare, threatening a government shut-down if a funding bill isn't passed.

 

How exactly does this make the Republicans "anarcho-capitalists",  "extremists", "arsonists", or "terrorists" ?

Sounds like the other way around to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, no funding Obamacare and government "shutdown"? Sounds pretty good to me. Thanks, guys. I find it hilarious that their idea of "shutting down" the government means restricting themselves to pretty much the only functions they should be involved in in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military personnel will not be paid in the event of a shutdown. I think we should have a military.

 

Passports and visas will not be processed. Another useful government function.

 

Social security and medicare, on the other hand, will not be shutdown and they continue to be paid.

 

So a shutdown, in reality, will make us a pure welfare state...

Edited by CrowEpistemologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do still have one in that case, as we should. They currently get paid with taxes though, something we shouldn't have.

Have one what; a military ? If so, then I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shutdown is more of a mixed bag. And no, it doesn't mean we lose our military during the shutdown. Military paychecks are withheld, subsequent funding bills will make up for it in back pay. From what I understand, many military personnel pick up the slack of other services. I don't know if they are then due over time or they are just paid more or what, but we end up spending more on the shutdown period than we otherwise would have. A shutdown is only beneficial if it helps force a long term budget reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shutdown is more of a mixed bag. And no, it doesn't mean we lose our military during the shutdown. Military paychecks are withheld, subsequent funding bills will make up for it in back pay. From what I understand, many military personnel pick up the slack of other services. I don't know if they are then due over time or they are just paid more or what, but we end up spending more on the shutdown period than we otherwise would have. A shutdown is only beneficial if it helps force a long term budget reduction.

 

We certainly lose our military if funding is removed from it (?). Yes, people will work for free... for a while...

 

Insofar as the shutdown is temporary, then we pay everything we would have paid (and much more) in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.com/house-republicans-hold-private-weekend-meeting-to-discuss-strategy-to-avoid-government-shutdown-151356907.html

 

 


Despite shutdown threat, House passes spending bill that delays Obamacare for one year

The House approved a spending bill early Sunday morning that would fund the government through Dec. 15, but tacked on amendments that would delay the federal health care law known as Obamacare for one year and repeal the medical device tax, a move that sets up a showdown with Senate Democrats and increases the probability of a government shutdown Tuesday.

 

The Obamacare delay amendment passed 231-192, and the vote on the medical device tax, which would help cover the costs of Obamacare, was 248-174. The House also unanimously passed a bill to fund the military in the event of a shutdown.

 

Congress must agree to a federal spending bill by Tuesday, or the federal government will partially close down until members can find a compromise solution. The Republican-led House and the Democrat-controlled Senate disagree over whether the bill should include the health care law. Last week, the House sent a spending bill to the Senate without Obamacare funding , and the Senate responded by returning the bill on Friday with the funding inserted.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Saturday after the Republicans announced their spending plan that the upper chamber would reject anything short of a bill identical to the one passed by the Senate, and the White House issued a statement saying that the president would veto the House bill.

 

“Today’s vote by House Republicans is pointless. As I have said repeatedly, the Senate will reject any Republican attempt to force changes to the Affordable Care Act through a mandatory government funding bill or the debt ceiling," Reid said in a statement. "To be absolutely clear, the Senate will reject both the one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of the medical device tax." 

The White House also responded by reiterating the president's call to pass a spending bill without riders attached. 

"The President has shown that he is willing to improve the health care law and meet Republicans more than halfway to deal with our fiscal challenges, but he will not do so under threats of a government shutdown that will hurt our economy," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. "Any member of the Republican Party who votes for this bill is voting for a shutdown."

 

Both parties are attempting to spin it as the other is voting to shut down the government. Hopefully this will cause the Senate to delay Obamacare and get rid of the medical device tax in fear of backlash from public. Not likely though. 

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both parties are attempting to spin it as the other is voting to shut down the government.

True. But that doesn't mean we should just declare that it's both their fault for failing to agree, equally.

The US system of government was set up to require agreement from the House, the Senate, and White House on government actions, precisely to limit the extent of those actions to things the American people unequivocally support.

When a spending initiative lacks support in Congress or the White House, that's usually because it doesn't have the American people's unequivocal support. At that point, the representatives trying to pass it should back off, and bring the proposal directly to the people next election.

When instead they play chicken with the entire government, the consequences are on them, not the side acting as the check on government power the founders intended to put in place.

 

The power of veto was intended to limit government, not to give the President the means to blackmail Congress into expanding it or into giving him more power. It should be exercised the way House Republicans are exercising it (to limit government action), not the way Obama and Senate Democrats are using it (to try and coax the other side into giving in to expanding the government).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly lose our military if funding is removed from it (?). Yes, people will work for free... for a while...

Funding is always restored, with back pay. Nobody thinks this "shutdown" is going to last very long. If people shouldn't call what Cruz did a filibuster because they knew it wouldn't work, don't say this will end the military. We know that's not going to happen. Have some consistency, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funding is always restored, with back pay. Nobody thinks this "shutdown" is going to last very long. If people shouldn't call what Cruz did a filibuster because they knew it wouldn't work, don't say this will end the military. We know that's not going to happen. Have some consistency, please.

 

The above poster implied that the shutdown is a good thing and implied it was a great state to be in permanently. I was just pointing out that, no, we can't just stop our Federal government. Funding the military is a vital part of securing our freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If made permanent, couldn't we just, you know, go to voluntary funding to pay the military? :ninja: ". . . no, we can't just stop our Federal government." Only parts are being stopped, not all of it. Also, what is this thing about the "shutdown" costing more than otherwise? I've heard it before, but I really don't know how/why that would be the case. Not doing stuff sounds like it would be cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If made permanent, couldn't we just, you know, go to voluntary funding to pay the military? :ninja: ". . . no, we can't just stop our Federal government." Only parts are being stopped, not all of it. Also, what is this thing about the "shutdown" costing more than otherwise? I've heard it before, but I really don't know how/why that would be the case. Not doing stuff sounds like it would be cheaper.

 

Nope, not cheaper. The government issues IOUs during the shutdown and repay after the shutdown. The overhead cost of running all of that costs a lot. Certainly it's not a massive expense, but the whole thing does cost marginally more than if they govt. were never shut down.

 

In that sense the term "shutdown" probably isn't quite accurate. It's more like a "pause"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it sounds like the additional expense doesn't come from not doing stuff, but instead from (eventually) doing stuff anyway and in the mean time going about business with the assumption that they will be going back to business as usual. While it is going on, the "shutdown" would actually be giving out less money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy shutdown everybody. Get all your murdering in while it's legal. And look out for all the convicted felons roaming the streets. I wouldn't be surprised if the aliens take advantage and invade.

 

:zorro:  :yarr:  :ph34r:  :pirate:  :ninja::alien: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The last time Americans cared about anything was when they shut down the Twinkies factory". - David Letterman

 

Seriously though, fed employees have been injected into many legitimate processes [e.g. the processing of beef (inspection), various business projects (myriad approvals)]. Even if we'd rather not have them, the law will freeze the processes if the feds don't do their role. I understand that some of these will still run at a certain level if they are "fee based"; but, to the extent they don't, they will cause disruption. In fact, if the Feds were to shut down things which will stay open -- like air-traffic control or the Federal reserve -- crucial processes will be hit. It is a lesson about how pervasive the government has become. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what is this thing about the "shutdown" costing more than otherwise?

I don't have a great understanding of it, but i understand one part involves receiving fewer fees for services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does this make the Republicans "anarcho-capitalists",  "extremists", "arsonists", or "terrorists" ?

Sounds like the other way around to me.

 

That is how siblings fight each other, and pretty much how hey have been smearing each other for a long time. 

 

Easier than presenting an intellectual argument! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this Government shutdown not a positive? What's the alternative?

The shutdown is a way to get people's attention. It stresses that Cruz et al think Obamacare is really bad. To the extent this results in something positive, this is the positive. However, the shutdown -- in itself -- is not the positive.

All entitlements will still be paid out. Anything considered essential will still be open. For other areas, it means that things like national parks are going to be closed, and that other things -- like some approval here or there -- will be delayed. At the end of the shutdown, Congress will almost certainly make up the pay for the government workers who were furloughed. So, no money would be saved, but some inconvenience caused. What do you see that is positive in the shut down, in itself?

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand the situation, the only positive that could come out of the shutdown is if the Democrats flinch first and a budget is passed that does not include funding for the ACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shutdown is a way to get people's attention. It stresses that Cruz et al think Obamacare is really bad. To the extent this results in something positive, this is the positive. However, the shutdown -- in itself -- is not the positive.

All entitlements will still be paid out. Anything considered essential will still be open. For other areas, it means that things like national parks are going to be closed, and that other things -- like some approval here or there -- will be delayed. At the end of the shutdown, Congress will almost certainly make up the pay for the government workers who were furloughed. So, no money would be saved, but some inconvenience caused. What do you see that is positive in the shut down, in itself?

Firstly, I understand the alternative would have been a passive(immoral) acceptance of the ACA, which I'm glad did not occur.

 

The Government hasn't taken the steps to progressively limit the scope towards an individual rights respecting government, so shouldn't a breakdown of the government be a consequence of their unprincipled actions, such as ACA, on all individuals? I have no reason to think they'll follow Miss Rand's and Reisman's steps towards a LFC society in the near future, only in the long term where reason ultimately wins out. The Republican's had their chance, but since they operate on Altruism as their core morality they didn't end unprincipled government programs, such as Medicare.

 

Since no single bipartisan bureaucrat upholds individual rights consistently, a shutdown of the leviathan would, as others have said, include proper gov services being punished while other immoral ones, such as Medicaid remain untouched. Perhaps, in the context of a shutdown Politicians will result to emotionalism, which would show their true colors and help to discredit them further. Maybe this example will trigger further discussion of ideas. Either way, of course Capitalism (which we've never had) will take the blame in the short term, but may rise in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I understand the alternative would have been a passive(immoral) acceptance of the ACA, which I'm glad did not occur.

Yes, the essence of this "shutdown" has been to do something other than passively accepting the ACA. I think you're agreeing that there is no other positive.

In a month or two, the details of GOP/tea-party arguments will fade. What will remain is the notion that some people in the country really, really didn't want the ACA. I don't know if this notion will have any positive or negative effect. The only positive that I can see is if this somehow makes people more open to positive changes that the GOP might be able to enact sometime in the next decade, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×