Fire the government
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2013, 10:53 PM
RE: Fire the government
(03-10-2013 11:01 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 05:59 AM)Dom Wrote:  The guys in Washington are an irresponsible lot, a bunch of little boys in a sand box throwing sand in each other's eyes.

They should all be sent home. Every one of them. Frusty

Quite the opposite actually.
Obviously something wasn't right with Obama's budget for the senate or whoever to refuse to pass it.

In saying that this is America and not the rest of the world, so it's probably more along the lines of some Democrat beat some Republican in a bowling game and so the Republican is all butthurt and is thus refusing to pass Obama's budget.


How's that 2 party system working out for ya 'Merica?


Has this been settled yet btw? I'm not really following this, I've decided American politics is so retarded it kills my brain cells so I've stopped following American politics.



All spending bills originate in the House, to then later be considered by the Senate. The House is controlled by the Republicans, so practically that means they produce the budget which the Senate has to vote on/amend and only after the two houses agree the President signs.

The House is elected in full every 2 years. It is intended to most closely represent the current political mood of the country. The Senate is elected 1/3 at a time each two years, for 6yr terms per Senator. Originally, the Senate was not elected, but appointed by State legislatures.

This brief civics lesson for a foreigner is only to set up my point--the system was by design intended to be inefficient with competing interests. George W Bush and Obama both had periods of government where both houses and the president were all the same party. Some of the worst laws were passed when there was no opposition to kill the crappy laws and policies from either party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: Fire the government
Yea I do understand it's purpose. It's a check and balance, much like in our system where parties often have to form coalitions to get into power and these small coalition partners act as a sort of check and balance as to stop effectively "elected dictatorship".

The issue is however, with your system you have 2 parties. Red and Blue. Like black and white in a chess game.
So naturally the check and balance is bias. There's more of a chance of one to be difficult simply because they're opposites, they're competition.
Where as with the coalition many parties way of doing things, you have like minded parties checking and balancing each other.
ie: Last election we had 2 parties form a coalition (3 actually but the third wasn't required to actually get into power). National and Act.
National is a center party, slightly leaning towards the right. Act is a minimal government right wing party.
Two still very different parties (much bigger difference than say Republicans and Democrats) but still both right wing.

So yous till get checks and balances of other parties, but you don't get that "I'm vetoing this simply because you're my opposition".

There's just so much wrong with the two party system. I am amazed to think of how much better America could be if it had a more European style of politics with the many parties.
And yes I know America has more than 2 parties but you know what I mean.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: Fire the government
Read "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat. I have read no better description of how society should run. Obviously, no one in Washington is applying that knowledge.

And yes, obamacare is a disaster waiting to happen. Front loaded taxes, forced participation, rationing, more regulations on private companies, less incentive for doctors, higher prices for insurance(that we now have to buy or pay a fine). It will be like every other great idea gubment has, costs more, less effective, but don't worry, there will be another politician around the corner to make it better, it will only cost a little more money, and require another gubment agency.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes T.H.'s post
04-10-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 03:41 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yea I do understand it's purpose. It's a check and balance, much like in our system where parties often have to form coalitions to get into power and these small coalition partners act as a sort of check and balance as to stop effectively "elected dictatorship".

The issue is however, with your system you have 2 parties. Red and Blue. Like black and white in a chess game.
So naturally the check and balance is bias. There's more of a chance of one to be difficult simply because they're opposites, they're competition.
Where as with the coalition many parties way of doing things, you have like minded parties checking and balancing each other.
ie: Last election we had 2 parties form a coalition (3 actually but the third wasn't required to actually get into power). National and Act.
National is a center party, slightly leaning towards the right. Act is a minimal government right wing party.
Two still very different parties (much bigger difference than say Republicans and Democrats) but still both right wing.

So yous till get checks and balances of other parties, but you don't get that "I'm vetoing this simply because you're my opposition".

There's just so much wrong with the two party system. I am amazed to think of how much better America could be if it had a more European style of politics with the many parties.
And yes I know America has more than 2 parties but you know what I mean.

Government shutdowns have been used a lot, and for the purpose of driving resolution. The reason we're at where we are is that Obamacare was crammed through Congress without a single GOP vote. There was even a special election in Massachusetts, one of the most ardent Democratic state in the union, where for the first time in decades the state sent a GOP to the Senate in large part so that he would vote against Obamacare.

The policy disagreements that bring us to this situation are not trivial. The Dems did this to president Reagan, and often it was to force the other side to compromise where they had previously been unwilling to. This article has a writeup of shutdowns during the Reagan presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/s...story.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 07:21 AM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 07:00 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 03:41 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yea I do understand it's purpose. It's a check and balance, much like in our system where parties often have to form coalitions to get into power and these small coalition partners act as a sort of check and balance as to stop effectively "elected dictatorship".

The issue is however, with your system you have 2 parties. Red and Blue. Like black and white in a chess game.
So naturally the check and balance is bias. There's more of a chance of one to be difficult simply because they're opposites, they're competition.
Where as with the coalition many parties way of doing things, you have like minded parties checking and balancing each other.
ie: Last election we had 2 parties form a coalition (3 actually but the third wasn't required to actually get into power). National and Act.
National is a center party, slightly leaning towards the right. Act is a minimal government right wing party.
Two still very different parties (much bigger difference than say Republicans and Democrats) but still both right wing.

So yous till get checks and balances of other parties, but you don't get that "I'm vetoing this simply because you're my opposition".

There's just so much wrong with the two party system. I am amazed to think of how much better America could be if it had a more European style of politics with the many parties.
And yes I know America has more than 2 parties but you know what I mean.

Government shutdowns have been used a lot, and for the purpose of driving resolution. The reason we're at where we are is that Obamacare was crammed through Congress without a single GOP vote. There was even a special election in Massachusetts, one of the most ardent Democratic state in the union, where for the first time in decades the state sent a GOP to the Senate in large part so that he would vote against Obamacare.

Untrue. The Democratic candidate was perceived as an out-of-touch party hack, while the Republican was a warm, engaging guy with a beautiful family.

The Affordable Care Act is pretty much a copy of what we have in Massachusetts.

Quote:The policy disagreements that bring us to this situation are not trivial. The Dems did this to president Reagan, and often it was to force the other side to compromise where they had previously been unwilling to. This article has a writeup of shutdowns during the Reagan presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/s...story.html

It doesn't matter who acts like a thug - thuggery is thuggery.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-10-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: Fire the government
(03-10-2013 03:25 PM)I Am Wrote:  
(03-10-2013 01:27 PM)RaisdCath Wrote:  And for which dept/agency do you "do" things?

Treasury/Revenue. Put down the gun. I keep ne'er-do-well scammers from getting tax ID numbers, by verifying authenticity of passports, birth certs, and so on. I have nothing at all to do with any US citizen's taxes.

Indeed! So; if I'm not making this too simple....your Agency/Department enforces the policies created by our representatives and signed into law by the executive? Hope I got this right.
I do not hate the police....be they local, state, or federal. They do not make the law; they enforce it. Yes, there are abuses in police forces. But - I hope - these are in the vast minority (aside from the overreaching abuse by leaders of the IRS and sanctioned by the current executive regime).
So....I honor you for your job....it is a thankless, but necessary one. Do it well!! As I'm sure you do.

"People don't go to heaven when they die; they're taken to a special room and burned!" Evil_monster
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RaisdCath's post
04-10-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 07:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  The Affordable Care Act is pretty much a copy of what we have in Massachusetts.

Really? So the law in Massachusetts says that if you're born in Massachusetts, then you have to buy health care insurance in Massachusetts for your whole life, even if you don't live in Massachusetts anymore, and have health care from another state?

We already discussed in the other forum that you're Canadian, with a US Green Card. Even if you spent 9 months out of the year in Canada, and paid into the Canadian tax and healthcare system, and Canada covered your health care costs for those 3 months you were in the US, do you realize you are STILL required by Obamacare to buy health insurance from one of his 'approved' providers? There's a big difference, imo, between a system which you voluntarily subject yourself to vs. one that your forced to be a part of with no means of escape.

Also, consider the perverse damages of Obamacare. In most states in the US, insurance companies offered very affordable 'high deductible' plans. An average plan for someone who is 40 years old cost around $50/month. It covered everything, with no limit, but the insured had to pay the first $10k. This was an affordable solution for very low income and part time workers who were young and healthy and didn't need a lot of routine care. It covered the emergencies, like accidents, cancer, heart attack, etc.

But now, thanks to Obamacare all those policies are now illegal, and coverage for the same person is now around $300/month; a 600% increase! If somebody makes over $15k/year and up to $48k/year (approx) he can get subsidies to offset the 6x increase in cost that Obamacare created (although this is simply paid for by other taxpayers). However, if he makes less than $15k/year, then he cannot get Obamacare subsidies. If you make <$15k/year, paying $50/month for health insurance is probably achievable. But paying $300/month is just not possible. Sure, at <$15k/year there's no 'penalty' in Obamacare. But they cannot get their old $50/month basic health insurance either since it's now illegal. So the very poor are actually LOSING their access to health care thanks to Obamacare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: Fire the government
There seems to be some disagreement, but guess what an alternative name for a troup of baboons is ?


Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-10-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 08:25 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 07:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  The Affordable Care Act is pretty much a copy of what we have in Massachusetts.

Really? So the law in Massachusetts says that if you're born in Massachusetts, then you have to buy health care insurance in Massachusetts for your whole life, even if you don't live in Massachusetts anymore, and have health care from another state?

We already discussed in the other forum that you're Canadian, with a US Green Card. Even if you spent 9 months out of the year in Canada, and paid into the Canadian tax and healthcare system, and Canada covered your health care costs for those 3 months you were in the US, do you realize you are STILL required by Obamacare to buy health insurance from one of his 'approved' providers? There's a big difference, imo, between a system which you voluntarily subject yourself to vs. one that your forced to be a part of with no means of escape.

Also, consider the perverse damages of Obamacare. In most states in the US, insurance companies offered very affordable 'high deductible' plans. An average plan for someone who is 40 years old cost around $50/month. It covered everything, with no limit, but the insured had to pay the first $10k. This was an affordable solution for very low income and part time workers who were young and healthy and didn't need a lot of routine care. It covered the emergencies, like accidents, cancer, heart attack, etc.

But now, thanks to Obamacare all those policies are now illegal, and coverage for the same person is now around $300/month; a 600% increase! If somebody makes over $15k/year and up to $48k/year (approx) he can get subsidies to offset the 6x increase in cost that Obamacare created (although this is simply paid for by other taxpayers). However, if he makes less than $15k/year, then he cannot get Obamacare subsidies. If you make <$15k/year, paying $50/month for health insurance is probably achievable. But paying $300/month is just not possible. Sure, at <$15k/year there's no 'penalty' in Obamacare. But they cannot get their old $50/month basic health insurance either since it's now illegal. So the very poor are actually LOSING their access to health care thanks to Obamacare.

Once again, you are wrong. I am not a U.S. citizen. I go back to Canada and I'm done.

And no one is required to buy health insurance. No force is used if you don't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 03:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once again, you are wrong. I am not a U.S. citizen. I go back to Canada and I'm done.

And no one is required to buy health insurance. No force is used if you don't.

No one is required to buy health insurance? That's like saying if the Christian God exists He doesn't require you to be Christian either. You can choose to go to hell just as you can choose to pay the fine. In both cases you aren't being compelled by force right?

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 149
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: