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
Congress can't remove people's healthcare without Senate Democrats agreeing, and they won't do that because it would cost them their jobs.
Also, and I'm going to mod mode this if necessary, the extrajudicial killings topic is in another thread. Frankly, it's not relevant to a conversation about domestic economic issues. And because nobody in the general voting public seems to give a crap about it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Serocco, you're not following the general principle here.
The party with the balance of power in government does not undo policies that are in their electoral self-interest (unless they're utterly insane, but we're not talking about the Tea Party Republicans in this context). Insofar that congressional Democrats realize that they're utterly screwed if people start saying "gee, that ACA stuff wasn't doing anything useful at all, why did I vote for those losers?", then any cuts that will delay its implementation are dead on arrival, and that includes cuts to federal healthcare spending.
The Democrats are well aware why the Republican House wants to cut federal healthcare spending that much. The survival instinct of hundreds of Democratic lawmakers does have more power than the President. Sometimes, by happy accident, the naked self-interest of politicians actually works to protect progressive legislation rather than derail it (as is most often the case).
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.We'll be voting some Democrats out of office in 2014, that's what we'll be doing.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Actually, I expect some more independents to be elected, riding ACA's coattails.
Personally, I would be against these cuts in general, but if it's really necessary to get out of a mess, then I would just live with something I'm against to some extent.
Cuts aren't all or nothing anyway - just like raising taxes marginally isn't.
What Fighteer said.
![]()
Sadly, more likely than not, unless people are willing to primary Democrats from the left.
Psst, Green Party, this is the part where you actually build some local ground game and work on scaring the Democrats.
edited 6th Mar '13 8:33:30 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.It's not the desirable outcome for anyone, but the voters will punish Democrats if they concede cuts to social programs. I'd rather have the defeats be at the primary rather than the general election level, but that's what happens to you when you fold on your party's principles.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I know this is going back a bit, but I think better comparisons to cloud computing are hotel rooms and storage units. If the landlord thinks you are doing something wrong, they have the right to call in the police. If the police think you are doing something wrong, they need to convince the landlord or get a warrant.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!2010 was mainly a case of Democrats having failed to immediately deliver total economic recovery (not helped by Obama's grandiose promises and lackluster delivery on stimulus), plus the rise of the Tea Party faction that capitalized on conservative resentment over the adoption of PPACA. In 2014, the full weight of PPACA will kick in, and if 30 million people suddenly start being able to afford doctor's visits, Democrats should reap a huge windfall in the fall elections.
Republicans will do anything, anything, to prevent this.
edited 6th Mar '13 8:51:12 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Well, that depends on whether the cuts happen before or after the benefits trigger. If the healthcare provisions begin and then they're cut, you're right. If the cuts happen this early, people won't have those benefits yet.
And I think the Republicans are better off trying to capture ACA rather than try to cut it. I'm seeing that trend with state governors.
edited 6th Mar '13 8:54:39 PM by Trivialis
Yes, the state governors are looking at the big pile of money that the federal government is shoveling their way and drooling so hard that it's short-circuiting their innate desire to pander to Tea Party interests.
Anyway, I don't think we're likely to get cuts to entitlements. The Grand Bargain remains a myth as long as Republicans don't cave on taxes. If they do, then the Tea Party will savage them in the primaries — or try to, anyway. Probably more worrisome than those folks is the money that will be thrown at defeating them by such luminaries as the Koch brothers.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You mean the sequester? They are screaming about defense cuts more than any other part of it, but it's not really all that genuine. They've been talking about cutting government spending, now they have cuts to government spending. To be sure, it's not all in places they would, ideologically, prefer it to be, but to any Republican who's genuinely committed to a small government platform, the sequester should be cause for joy, not grief.
It's a mark of how schizophrenic the party is that they can't even agree that flat cuts to government spending are a good thing.
No, they want the cuts to all come from social programs, leaving their precious military alone.
edited 6th Mar '13 9:03:22 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: The Republican primarying trick is possible because the Tea Party has a ruthlessly efficient and nasty machine for funding purges of the Republican Party. The Koch Brothers consider their ideological control of the Republican Party to be more important than the Party overall controlling Congress. Simply put, they're ruling by The Purge, and if it costs them the independent vote, that's fine; why should they care what anyone else wants? (Especially what people who they can prevent from voting want.)
George Soros and Warren Buffett do not have the political organization needed to similarly purge disobedient Democrats, even if they had an interest in doing so. "The Democratic Party" is a much bigger tent than the current Republican Party, and its political machinery is designed around getting Democrats into power and not removing their own people from it.
edited 6th Mar '13 9:07:33 PM by Ramidel
@Ramidel: Agreed, but that makes general voter disillusionment work for Republicans, not Democrats. The Democrats have to work to keep the majority of the voting public happy with them, while the Republicans only concern themselves with that small group who controls the primaries. Ergo, the Democrats have an incentive to be socially responsible while the Republicans do not.
2010 saw the loss of seats by many of the Blue Dog Democrats — the ones who had their name in the D column but their vote in the R column. This is an example of what I'm talking about. When Democrats play the centrist game, they lose to Republicans. When Republicans play the centrist game, they lose to other Republicans. On the other hand, when Republicans play the extremist game, they lose to Democrats. They haven't figured this part out yet.
edited 6th Mar '13 9:40:42 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Arkansas legislature overrides Governor's veto of ban on early abortions
You know, I don't understand how the Democrats aren't better at organizing themselves in large numbers. Same goes for the Green Party. It's not like either group are newbies to this business at this point in time. It seems like they save all their savvy for presidential campaigning. The Democrats, I mean, I have no idea what the Greens are doing beside having meaningless presidential candidacy debates and sitting on the fringes of the conversation.
I'm surprised Arkansas has a Democrat for governor. Also, this is the kind of thing that happens with checks and balances, unfortunately.
Air marshals, flight attendants want TSA to reconsider knife policy
New T.S.A. Rules Draw Praise of National Arbitrariness Association (NAA)
edited 6th Mar '13 10:22:35 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016@Ace Of Spades: For one thing, the Green Party doesn't take corporate contributions.
Anyway, Democrats' problem is that they cater to a section of the populace that doesn't vote as often. The Republicans can call on fanatical support from their stormtroopers and from no one else, while the Democrats have lukewarm support (or Enemy Mine support, take your pick) from people as diverse as deathpigeon and The Starship Maxima. Adding to this, a lot of people on the far-left end are completely disillusioned with the electoral system and can't be arsed to get out and vote at all. And finally, the poor have trouble taking time off to vote (or to get ID to vote, for that matter), and the Democrats can't pay people to go vote.
edited 6th Mar '13 10:34:12 PM by Ramidel

Optimistic tone at Obama-Senate GOP dinner
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016