Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Soban, don't pretend that the GOP didn't bring out every weapon in their arsenal to defeat PPACA, just as the Dems brought out everything to pass it. It was a war, but a war that was already lost when the Democrats legitimately assumed control of the White House and Congress in 2008. Frankly, you need to consider that your philosophy is shared by an ever-diminishing demographic that will eventually fade into irrelevance, although not without inflicting considerable harm to our government in its death throes.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:26:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^ Honestly, I'd rather both sides stopped doing that "All or nothing" approach towards politics. It's kind of like how Dems scrambled every available asset to try and renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. You guys fucking lost, but it's not like you won't try again. The left will keep on chugging away at trying to reinstate another AWB, and at some point it'll probably happen if they can leverage the media during a strong Democratic political session in the aftermath of some instance of gun violence they'd like to hold up on a pedestal at that particular time.
Both parties could learn some lessons in giving up and losing honorably.
This, pretty much. One thing that we all need to understand about this debate is that there are positives and minuses based on your own personal value system to this.
I feel that if you are someone who has a decent job and access to your own healthcare plan, it isn't unreasonable to say you don't want to pay more taxes for a program that you don't plan on using. In general, people don't want to pay more taxes. People really are loathe to pay more taxes for services that they aren't going to be using. That's like a homeowners association charging every house an animal fee, including the inhabitants without animals, because the HOA needs more money to compensate for the animals living in those homes. The people who don't own a pet are thinking "Why the fuck am I paying this?"
On the other hand, I can understand the motivations of those who are for the Affordable Care Act. It's just a different set of personal values. To be honest though, despite being pro-Obamacare myself, more or less, I find this "moral highground and outrage" card being played by liberals really fucking obnoxious. I think nationalized healthcare is a good idea, if we can afford it. But it's really, really, really fucking annoying to see all the screeching holier than thou liberals saying "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT OBAMACARE YOU'RE A BAD HUMAN BEING WHO IS OBVIOUSLY REALLY STUPID!" that I see going around.
It's not necessarily a bad thing to just go "Seriously, I have a hard enough time worrying about me and my own. I don't give a shit about those other folks." Both are valid values systems, and god knows plenty of people either are struggling or have struggled who are against Obamacare, and aren't keen on it taking from their own pockets. It's not all a bunch of really well-off people. There are plenty of conservative middle class types who aren't broke, but aren't rich, and would like to not have another nibble of their discretionary income taken away for nationalized healthcare.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:39:00 AM by Barkey
@Fighteer, 'What if I'm wrong?' is something that I've given significant thought. Just because I've come to a different conclusion then you does not mean I have not given your position enough thought. I want what is best for myself and what is best for america. I know what my core values are and why they drive through to implementation. I would be willing to bet that we have different core values that lead to different thoughts about what is a good idea and what is not.
Barkey, the thing is that we'd really like to have a comprehensive national income support/welfare/taxation policy that fully supports progressive aims. We can't get what we want, though, so we keep having to go with these half measures.
A truly progressive national economic policy would not have an overly high burden on the "middle-to-upper" class bracket that is of such concern to you. The problem right now is that when any/all taxes on the wealthy are considered anathema and fought tooth-and-nail, we're forced to resort to policies that may make a young, healthy, middle income earner have to pay more for healthcare.
This is a necessary sacrifice. I'm not happy about it, but honestly, I've been a young, healthy, middle income earner, and the amount of freedom I had was enormous compared to the family man that I am now, with credit card debt, a mortgage, a spouse and a child.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:41:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^
Yeah dude, and people who aren't progressive don't care about progressive aims, or outright oppose them.
Well, that isn't entirely true. There are several progressive goals that I support, such as upholding Roe V Wade and gay marriage.
Those of us who are young, healthy, middle income earners with freedom want to keep it that way. That's one position I will verify that I personally represent.
And here's the thing, I'll reiterate that I am pro-obamacare, but I'm for a realistic form of it. Don't write the check before you look at your god damn bank balance, lets look at the bank balance and see what we can do with what we have. There's a very good chance that the ACA could significantly contribute to breaking the bank when it comes to our budget. I'd rather that didn't happen.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:43:58 AM by Barkey
And the thing is that a fully progressive economic policy would increase those freedoms you hold so precious, by reducing the overall tax burden on the poor and middle class.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^^
Except for the fact that the same people who are promoting that system are the same ones who want to take away other freedoms. They are the same Democrats who are anti-gun and pro-surveillance.
Economic mobility is awesome. However, it's not all rainbows and fluffy bunnies for me. The Democrats having unfettered control has lots of very bad consequences where "freedom" is concerned, at least for the ones that I personally find important.
I have a secure job that I will be in until I retire most likely. The Dems have a higher risk of cutting the funding that allows me to have a job, raising the taxes I pay, restricting several freedoms that are thoroughly important to me that their policies and opinions do not protect or bolster, and allowing government overreach to do things that I find to be vastly immoral and illegal in the realm of government control and surveillance of private citizens.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:47:57 AM by Barkey
@Barkey: PPACA has been studied. It's revenue neutral at worst, and positive at best. It was very carefully crafted with this in mind. The "can we afford it" issue is a red herring, and you know it. We are the richest nation on the planet; if we can't afford it, we can't expect anyone else to, and yet somehow dozens of other nations have managed.
PPACA is the best we could get with what we had. I'd rather a fully nationalized system, but it's not on the table.
Pro-surveillance? No more so than Republicans. That's the best you can go with? As for the gun debate, I'm not as invested in it but I will say that the proponents of gun rights are vastly overstating their case. You're trying to enshrine a principle that is dubious at best in the name of social conditions that no longer exist.
As for the military, we simply don't need the bloated, top heavy institutions that we have now. Some military is always needed, but we could cut what we have by half and still have the most powerful army on the planet. And the resources devoted to it could go to far more useful things — like, say, universal healthcare.
edited 20th Aug '13 11:54:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced late Monday that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship
Justice Department launches probe of JPMorgan energy practice
Here we go again,
Ok, if you have ten billion in tax income and twelve billion in outflows, if you add a billion to tax income and add a billion to outflows, it's revenue neutral. You are still losing two billion but the addition of the extra billion did nothing to it. However, you still increased the tax income by a billion.
And your point is what? That inflow is inherently bad?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As for the military, we simply don't need the bloated, top heavy institutions that we have now. Some military is always needed, but we could cut what we have by half and still have the most powerful army on the planet. And the resources devoted to it could go to far more useful things — like, say, universal healthcare.
Then why is it that Feinstein found tons of instances of the NSA violating its own rules regarding what it is allowed to do as "not a big deal"? I haven't seen very many high up Democrats, not to mention our Democratic Administration decrying PRISM anywhere near loudly enough.
As for guns, the right to self-defence and bearing arms is as important to me as uplifting the poor is to you, to put it into a frame of reference.
And for the military... We have a lot of waste we could cut, but Dems will do the same shit Clinton did, start booting troops like me with no black marks on our record, and keeping tons of overpaid contractors instead. Honestly, I want to keep my fucking job, so I obviously disagree with you to a degree there. I plan to keep doing what I do until I retire, anything that is an obstacle to that is pretty much public enemy #1 to me.
Gun control aside, you're describing issues that pertain to both Democrats and Republicans, Barkey. I don't agree with the stance on surveillance, but PATRIOT was passed during the Bush years. I don't agree with cutting troops but not cutting the military-industrial complex, but both sides seem to worship the latter. Either way, you lose jobs, though.
Frankly, insisting on the right to own guns but not that people deserve access to medical care seems utterly backwards to me.
edited 20th Aug '13 12:01:04 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^
Yeah, but when it's my job it's obviously going to be more important to me. Ergo why I feel the way I do.
And while I disagree with PATRIOT and totally acknowledge that it's a Republican originated problem, the Democrats have found it quite useful too. Honestly, Obama talked a lot about transparency when I voted for his ass but his term as President hasn't been very transparent.
Democrats do tend to have a serious problem of quietly consolidating power. Obama and Clinton both did it, you have dozens of Feinsteins gunning for guns and trying to sell surveillance state. As far as privacy goes, they're...somewhat less bad about it than Republicans, but still pretty damn bad — there's a reason recent amendments to the NSA spying failed along bipartisan lines, however narrowly.
While they tend to have a decent voting record economically, in practice they're little better. Congressional interns, most of whom have to travel across the country and reside in one of the most expensive districts in the country, are still completely unpaid or even so much as discounted room and board, when their employers could quite easily do so out of pocket if necessary for the easiest (and very topically relevant) PR move ever. You have spectacularly rare good eggs like Joe Garcia
on that front, but for the most part Democrats are quite happy to quietly reap the same benefits as Republicans as long as nobody looks closely enough to make a stink.
edited 20th Aug '13 1:41:53 PM by Pykrete
![]()
This. I'd also like my parents' tax money back for wasted military expenditures during the Cold War, and I'd like the banks to cough up all the money that they stole from Americans in 2006-2008. It ain't happening.
@Barkey: I recognize the incentive to care more about one's own job than about others' jobs. Frankly, though, I have to look at who did worse things in office, and when Bush presided over the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops in a useless war, plus instituted those programs that are now used to spy on American citizens, I have to assign blame where it is properly due.
I don't worship at Obama's feet; he's been a serious disappointment in many areas. Still, he's doing far better work than a Republican would have, especially the current crop. There simply is no sane alternative on the right to choose.
edited 20th Aug '13 12:16:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Iowa GOP County Chair Resigns, Says Party ‘Headed In Wrong Direction’

edited 20th Aug '13 11:25:37 AM by Zendervai