Government Shutting Down

[NYC17]

yes shutting down the military would do tons of good.... cause that totally would leave someone open for attack

other people have other options for money...we don't if you're active duty but go ahead and stop paying pussy reservist

Which is why you should have an issue with the political strategy currently being put to use by Republicans.

[Cottonmouth]

I don't agree with anything going on but at least they kept the one thing able to protect people while all this bullshit happens alive

- - - Updated - - -

trust me 99.9% of the military doesn't like what goes on

[NYC17]

I don't agree with anything going on but at least they kept the one thing able to protect people while all this bullshit happens alive

- - - Updated - - -

trust me 99.9% of the military doesn't like what goes on

Yes, at least they tried to marginalize the effects of their shitty strategy and policy, as well as absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. This "bullshit" that's happening is entirely their doing. They don't get any brownie points.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I don't agree with anything going on but at least they kept the one thing able to protect people while all this bullshit happens alive

- - - Updated - - -

trust me 99.9% of the military doesn't like what goes on

It's a little double standardish though. I mean I'm glad to assuming this will happen.

[Orbitus]

if you're referring to the graph that Wells posted.. that's not even accurate CBO data.. it attributes all 2009 spending increases to Bush because he signed the 2009 budget despite the fact that Bush did not sign off on a single one of those laws.. that graph is based on this absolute garbage article http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/ that completely skews and in many cases flat out makes up lies in order to paint Obama in a pretty light..

for example this article attributes a 435 billion stimulus to Bush.. yet in reality Bush vetoed that bill

- - - Updated - - -



making crap up again I see

ishootblanks
ishootblanks is offline
Herald of the Titans

Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Seattle'ish
Posts
2,594

Quote Originally Posted by NYC17 View Post
In general terms? Because we didn't have a near total collapse of the world economy prior to Clinton taking office. This isn't all of the reason of course, but it's a significant difference that some people like to ignore.
and there's a reason there was not a horrific world ending collapse between 1980 and 2008... we had a much more free market system.. regulations were not yet crushing the economy.. government spending was not putting the fear of tax hikes into businesses and investors.. taxes were easy to avoid and not barring small and medium sized corporations from growing.. and market corrections were happening all the time.. but they only affected smaller groups here and there rather than the entire nation at once..

the .com bomb was not the result of the free market failing.. but because an artificial cap on the number of web domains was causing a false market.. the reason for he bomb was a correction to the addressing that allowed the number of domains to increase exponentially.. we won't have the same problem again because IPv6 was created early and prevented a bottleneck long before it could even occur..

the next economic recession was caused by 9/11... once again.. not a failure in the free market.. and despite massive government overhaul.. new rules and regulations.. the economy bounced back quickly... the combination of the wars and global warming scares after Katrina landed created new fears of higher taxes and regulations.. this created a small affect on the economy.. but as we were at near full unemployment anyway it was easily absorbed.. and once again.. not related to the private sector market..

the 2008 crash resulting from TARP and Dodd-Frank was also easily avoidable.. Bush and congressional republicans had been trying to address it since 2001..

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...P#post22508815 Copied from post 36 by ishootblanks. THE CRASH OF 2008 WAS THE RESULT OF TARP! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Here ishotmyselfintheheadandlostmybrain is the real reason the recession happened in 2008 http://useconomy.about.com/od/Financ...Crash-2008.htm It explains everything was the result of the housing bubble and that TARP was the result of the housing bubble bursting not the cause of it

[Angella]

Well at this point the GOP is asking:

1. Delay the individual mandate another year. Likely to have another shot at winning the legislature and repealing it outright. But honestly the business mandate is already delayed so wth is the difference.

2. Repeal the medical device tax. Stupid tax to begin with and it's repeal actually has bipartisan support (show me something else with bipartisan support in D.C.)

3. If there is to be a government shutdown, troops get to be included in 'essential services' and therefore get paid in cash rather than IOUs.

That's the offer on the table that Obama is going to have to say no to. Most Americans agree with these three so it's bad for Dems to say no.

[NYC17]

Well at this point the GOP is asking:

1. Delay the individual mandate another year. Likely to have another shot at winning the legislature and repealing it outright. But honestly the business mandate is already delayed so wth is the difference.

2. Repeal the medical device tax. Stupid tax to begin with and it's repeal actually has bipartisan support (show me something else with bipartisan support in D.C.)

3. If there is to be a government shutdown, troops get to be included in 'essential services' and therefore get paid in cash rather than IOUs.

That's the offer on the table that Obama is going to have to say no to. Most Americans agree with these three so it's bad for Dems to say no.

1.) The employer mandate is not integral. It covered a rather insignificant portion of businesses.

2.) No need to shut down the government for this if it's bipartisan.

3.) No

Obama will and should say no to the "offer". An offer based on bullshit isn't an offer. It's a temper tantrum.

[Yvaelle]

i was thinking Chris Christie but ya him on their ballot would work too

The thing about Chris Christie is, he's a sane republican - perhaps the only one - and that makes him a socialist in the eyes of the neoconservative right. The neoconservatives are probably more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton (a war hawk), than they are for Chris Christie (a republican who is about as far right as Obama, but who falls on the other side of "the line"). There would be a lot of moderate democrats who would be happy to see Chris Christie win - but he can't:

- Fox News is still the kingmaker of the Republican party, if they run bad stories about a candidate they can kill their chance (and Fox hates Chris Christie, because he's not insane), if they run tons of positive stories about a candidate they make them seem more important than they are (ie. Ted Cruz), and if they ignore a candidate entirely they can push them out of the running even if they are winning (Ron Paul, who actually had an enormous backing last election - but had almost zero airtime on Fox)

- Chris Christie won't pass the GOP Primaries, because the neoconservative right hates him - and Christie has called them stuipd repeatedly in the past

- Demographically speaking, democratic support is growing all across the US. Gerrymandering has delayed the effect in favour of republican controlled sectors - but in terms of populist votes the Republicans can't win without getting some democratic support (Christie could potentially do this). The GOP support comes overwhelming from aging retirees - which is why Fox plays such a critical role in GOP primaries, but not such a big role in overall elections (the average Fox viewer is 72 years old): Republicans are literally dying of old age, and while some newly old people do shift to more conservative views - many of them hold onto their past alignment, old people 5 years from now will be more democratic than today, and are already more democratic than 10 years ago

- the other demographic concern of course is that with more latin-descent immigrants registering to vote, and also having higher population growth than the norm, and all generally leaning left in the American political landscape - the lower age group demographics are growing - and are of course generally left

As it stands, the Republicans won't be able to put forward a competitive candidate in the next couple elections unless they radically redesign themselves to move left and try to cut into the democratic voting block. The smartest thing the GOP can do right now, if they want to win an election - is cut the Tea Party off their constituent list and redesign themselves to be a moderate republican party capable of appealing to some of the moderate democrat base.

The tea party won't be able to run a candidate capable of winning on their own - which means they will be forced to vote Republican anyways. Such a party would be able to cut away at the growing democratic base - grow their base - and still retain the favour of the Tea Party (who won't be happy, but forget them).

[NYC17]

Christie is going to have a difficult time in the South.

[Angella]

1.) The employer mandate is not integral. It covered a rather insignificant portion of businesses.

2.) No need to shut down the government for this if it's bipartisan.

3.) No

Obama will and should say no to the "offer". An offer based on bullshit isn't an offer. It's a temper tantrum.

1. 1/3 of Americans have health insurance through their employer and that was an insignificant portion of business? What is your definition of insignificant? 0o

2. If *has* bipartisan support but not support from Harry Reid or Obama specifically. Therefore to get it passed it'll have to be part of some larger negotiation.

3. So you think legislators are more important than soldiers? I beg to differ.

[NYC17]

1. 1/3 of Americans have health insurance through their employer and that was an insignificant portion of business? What is your definition of insignificant? 0o

2. If *has* bipartisan support but not support from Harry Reid or Obama specifically. Therefore to get it passed it'll have to be part of some larger negotiation.

3. So you think legislators are more important than soldiers? I beg to differ.

1.) http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...ean-that-much/
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412...er-Mandate.pdf

2.) Shutting down the government is not a negotiation.

3.) No, the law does. Beg to differ with it all you want.

[Zython]

cause paying the people defending the country is bullshit right? who doesn't want pissed off people with access to pretty equipment

Yeah, because no one else working for the government does anything valuable. Just you.

Get off your high horse.

[Cottonmouth]

Yeah, because no one else working for the government does anything valuable. Just you.

Get off your high horse.

oh sorry didnt know people were in need of mail or anything to protect them. what would we do oh nooooo

please tell me what other way I have of making money living on a base. Last I checked I can't have 2 jobs at once like basically every other job.

[Wells]

Oh god can we not get into the usual demands on military worship?

[Theinquisition]

Oh god can we not get into the usual demands on military worship?

Seems like the only person ever talking about military worship is you Wells.

Most in the military don't want it, it makes us feel weird.

Maybe your just jealous that someone may or may not get more attention than you?

[Cottonmouth]

worship? shit I don't even tell people I'm in military when I'm home.
I'd much rather be a civilian lol

[NYC17]

Seems like the only person ever talking about military worship is you Wells.

Most in the military don't want it, it makes us feel weird.

Maybe your just jealous that someone may or may not get more attention than you?

See the exchange between Cotton and I if you need a recent example of other people.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Seems like the only person ever talking about military worship is you Wells.

Most in the military don't want it, it makes us feel weird.

Maybe your just jealous that someone may or may not get more attention than you?

I don't think he gives a shit.

[Theinquisition]

I don't think he gives a shit.

Maybe not, but seriously as liberal and anti-military as this forum tends to be, the whining about military worship is stale. If he can't form a coherent argument without snide attacks, than why bother posting.

[Wells]

If he can't form a coherent argument without snide attacks, than why bother posting.

Maybe your just jealous that someone may or may not get more attention than you?

>.>

Not but seriously, its awful that military spending so often gets treated as a special unicorn that can't be touched when everything else is slashed.