If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ottawa Citizen)   Canadian perspective: "What is playing out is essentially a Washington blame game, an Inside the Beltway version of reality TV, with Republicans and Democrats voting each other off the island"   (ottawacitizen.com) divider line 77
    More: Amusing, Republican, United States, Inside the Beltway, Inside the Beltway version, Canadians, Democrats, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, public health care  
•       •       •

767 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2013 at 11:37 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-07 11:15:37 AM
The tribe has spoken, you are the weakest link.

GOODBYE!
 
2013-10-07 11:33:14 AM
Can we vote them all out next year?
 
2013-10-07 11:35:52 AM
In other words, Boehner is asking the White House for a deal, but he can forget about one with defunding of ObamaCare.

Sooo...to continue the foreign perspective, this is all just a game of chicken?
 
2013-10-07 11:38:05 AM

RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?


Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?
 
2013-10-07 11:38:36 AM
First Bieber, now Cruz.  Canada's takeover of 'Merica is almost complete...
 
2013-10-07 11:39:52 AM
A blame game?  Only if you really, really dumb down the situation.
 
2013-10-07 11:41:01 AM
But two things are clear in the budget impasse.

First, health reform is a signature piece of legislation for Obama. There is no chance that he would allow himself to be rolled on it by the Republicans.

Second, the Tea Party has broken constitutional convention in terms of the division of powers. They have provoked what amounts to a constitutional crisis. Such is the significance of the standoff that Obama cancelled an important trip to Asia to attend the APEC summit of heads of government.


Third, if Obama caves in to these lunatics, then it's opening the door to all kinds of future lunacy. A line in the sand must be drawn NOW.

"We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn HERE! This far, no further!" - Captain Jean Luc Obama
 
2013-10-07 11:42:44 AM

qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?


Because if we start doing that, maybe they'll realize they need to be better in order to keep their job.
 
2013-10-07 11:44:24 AM
Such a shame that people outside of the US don't realize the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with this...

this is completely at the feet of house Republicans, it was instigated by Cruz in the Senate but now Boehner is owning it so he can "look like the alpha" to those under his leadership.

Problem being, this high school pissing contest is playing with the full faith and credit of the "best country on earth", as if it's worth it to do this because the US is trying to catch up with Canada and everyone else in providing guaranteed healthcare for everyone.

Such a shame. If the country goes to hell because of the house republican's irresponsibility, they'll do what they always do and project, they'll shift blame onto the democrats. Yet the democrats aren't asking anything from the republicans. Just insane.

Really hoping I can escape this country sometime in the near future.
 
2013-10-07 11:45:56 AM
This isn't a blame game.  That's what usually happens.  This is so much different and so much worse.  C'mon, Canadian newspaper.
 
2013-10-07 11:46:36 AM
Both sides are bad so eat poutine.
 
2013-10-07 11:48:16 AM
Thus proving once again that Canadians have no idea what the fark is going on.
 
2013-10-07 11:48:44 AM

RedPhoenix122: qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?

Because if we start doing that, maybe they'll realize they need to be better in order to keep their job.


How would that work if you're not applying any sort of discriminating criteria? If we're "voting them all out" then we're voting out the "good" representatives as well as the "bad representatives" while leaving in place all of the things that brought the "bad representatives" into the process in the first place, not to mention that most people's definition of "good representative" and "bad representative" is probably dependent on whether or not it's their Congressman in question.
 
2013-10-07 11:49:54 AM
Not even close.

What is happening is the GOP is trying for an enormous power grab where they will control national policy from a slim majority in the House by threatening to severely harm the country if their demands are not met. The Democrats are dealing with a hostage situation where any concessions will set the precedent that the US can be successfully held for ransom.
 
2013-10-07 11:50:26 AM
Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling. I think a severe global economic downturn is the only thing that will make people demand such changes to our broken political system.

So...yeah. GO, TEA PARTIERS, GO! DESTROY ALL IN YOUR PATH!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-07 11:51:15 AM

qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?


There are polls showing that the Democrats would pick up enough seats to re-take the house if the election were held now.
 
2013-10-07 11:51:45 AM

Argh Not Again: Thus proving once again that Canadians have no idea what the fark is going on.


and I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to jump ship and join them in their government-insured ignorance
 
2013-10-07 11:51:50 AM

Target Builder: Not even close.

What is happening is the GOP is trying for an enormous power grab where they will control national policy from a slim majority in the House by threatening to severely harm the country if their demands are not met. The Democrats are dealing with a hostage situation where any concessions will set the precedent that the US can be successfully held for ransom.


That's effectively what TFA says. Subby decided to pull out a single BSABSVR sentence out of context.
 
2013-10-07 11:53:11 AM
Except no one ever leaves, they just dance in a circle forever
 
2013-10-07 11:53:26 AM

vpb: qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?

There are polls showing that the Democrats would pick up enough seats to re-take the house if the election were held now.


I interpreted "vote them all out" as "replace everyone in Congress". I could be wrong.
 
2013-10-07 11:55:11 AM
I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.
 
2013-10-07 11:56:12 AM

From The Woods: Such a shame that people outside of the US don't realize the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with this...

this is completely at the feet of house Republicans, it was instigated by Cruz in the Senate but now Boehner is owning it so he can "look like the alpha" to those under his leadership.


Actually, the submission headline is a bit misleading with regards to the how the article explains the situation.

"In the U.S. constitutional division of powers, the president proposes, the Congress disposes and the Supreme Court decides.
In 2010, President Barack Obama proposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and Congress passed it. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare.
But the Tea Party wing of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives denied funding for ObamaCare in the budget standoff with the Democratic majority in the Senate this week. "

Bam, right in the preamble the author of the column sets up that the Tea Partiers are having a little tantrum.   He also refers to the Tea Party wing as 'crazies' which Boehner should ditch if he wants to save the GOP.  I'd say he's grasped the situation rather well.
 
2013-10-07 11:57:15 AM
Yeah, I can tell very easily that many of you read the headline, but not even the opening of the article.
 
2013-10-07 11:58:04 AM
Canadian perspective:
 
2013-10-07 11:59:00 AM
dammit...
 
2013-10-07 11:59:42 AM
forget it.

sienfield_goodluckwithallofthat.gif
 
2013-10-07 11:59:48 AM

TeDDD: Yeah, I can tell very easily that many of you read the headline, but not even the opening of the article.


The headline quote really didn't fit the rest of the article. Not sure why the author put that in there.
 
2013-10-07 12:02:39 PM
Both sides are bad, so vote republican?

I'm onto you canadian conservatards.
 
2013-10-07 12:05:31 PM

Lando Lincoln: TeDDD: Yeah, I can tell very easily that many of you read the headline, but not even the opening of the article.

The headline quote really didn't fit the rest of the article. Not sure why the author put that in there.


I think the author is saying that, despite the facts being clear to an outside observer (One: Obama will not back down on the ACA, and Two: the Tea Partiers are ignoring the constitutional division of power in order to provoke a crisis) the situation has devolved to finger pointing and posturing.
 
2013-10-07 12:08:35 PM
Blame for this manufactured "crisis" lays firmly at the feet of the GOP.

They are either too chicken shiat to stand up to a group of dangerous ideologues in their own party or they agree with the ideologues.
 
2013-10-07 12:09:46 PM
Nope, its more like this.

pixel.nymag.com
 
2013-10-07 12:10:58 PM
As a Canadian, I can't say this is my perspective on it.  What we're seeing is another episode of a right wing minority trying to take over the US.  Obamacare, for all the public mention of it, is only the macguffin.  The real issue the control of the GOP and hence, control of the gerrymandered house, and ultimately control of the purse strings of the US gov't.

This is the same "disagreement" that led to the sequester.  Only now, even tea qaeda realizes the Dems won't be fooled twice, so the stakes are that much higher.  The real issue is...  will the rank and file "sane" Republicans step forward and declare that enough is enough?

As far as the effects on the Canadian economy, I can agree with the article's writer.  We're going to temporarily see a stronger Canadian dollar.  Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your perspective) the Canadian economy is tied too tightly to the US for the looney to totally take off compared to the US dollar.  If the US does default and the globe goes to either the Euro or the Yuan as the global currency, we'll probably end up tanking too.
 
2013-10-07 12:12:14 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.


Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.
 
2013-10-07 12:14:19 PM

Jormungandr: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.


The same goes for any party worldwide that tried to abolish single-payer care in a nation that already has it. Hence the insane wrangling over the ACA. Turns out people (even the poors!) don't like dying/going bankrupt over common medical issues.
 
2013-10-07 12:15:24 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.


That's the beauty of the parliamentary system though.  If the gov't can't perform basic duties (such as making a budget and paying for budgeted items) then the gov't is dissolved and a new election is held until a government is formed that can actually govern.

I'm no fan of Harper's conservatives, but they can't really shut down the gov't for any meaningful amount of time.
 
2013-10-07 12:20:35 PM
both sides bad, eh?
 
2013-10-07 12:21:06 PM

gopher321: In other words, Boehner is asking the White House for a deal, but he can forget about one with defunding of ObamaCare.

Sooo...to continue the foreign perspective, this is all just a game of chicken?


Yeah...and the GOP are being whiny petulant children about the whole thing.
 
2013-10-07 12:23:12 PM
In Canada we have access to CNN, Fox News, Drudge, Politico, Huffington Post, the Daily Show, etc. Anybody who actually cares doesn't need some trite article in a local paper to understand that the Tea Party is using its gerrymandered majority in the house to take the American economy hostage, in an effort to dictate policy to the senate and executive branch.
 
2013-10-07 12:23:19 PM
A Canadian version of both sides are bad? No thanks. We have a crappy American press that can tell us that
 
2013-10-07 12:23:22 PM

Mercutio74: As a Canadian, I can't say this is my perspective on it.  What we're seeing is another episode of a right wing minority trying to take over the US.  Obamacare, for all the public mention of it, is only the macguffin.  The real issue the control of the GOP and hence, control of the gerrymandered house, and ultimately control of the purse strings of the US gov't.

This is the same "disagreement" that led to the sequester.  Only now, even tea qaeda realizes the Dems won't be fooled twice, so the stakes are that much higher.  The real issue is...  will the rank and file "sane" Republicans step forward and declare that enough is enough?

As far as the effects on the Canadian economy, I can agree with the article's writer.  We're going to temporarily see a stronger Canadian dollar.  Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your perspective) the Canadian economy is tied too tightly to the US for the looney to totally take off compared to the US dollar.  If the US does default and the globe goes to either the Euro or the Yuan as the global currency, we'll probably end up tanking too.


The GOP did this autopsy thing after the last election and one of the findings was that unless something changed there was little likelihood of the GOP retaking the White House. The conventional understanding of this was the now famous and flawed GOP outreach. The diagnosis is still the same but it appears the plan has changed. It now seems that they seek to change the roles of government and make the executive branch a ceremonial and politically neutered office.

If they can't have it, they will make it irrelevant. They can win in the House so they will make it the center of power.
 
2013-10-07 12:23:23 PM
Want a long-term solution to this? Send Wendy Davis a check.

Texas has 36 seats in the House, and thanks to gerrymandering only 12 Dems. Gerrymandered majorities are /fragile/ -- get her the cash to campaign successfully and straight-ticket voters may vote for her and kick out the failures in the bargain.
 
2013-10-07 12:25:16 PM

Mercutio74: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

That's the beauty of the parliamentary system though.  If the gov't can't perform basic duties (such as making a budget and paying for budgeted items) then the gov't is dissolved and a new election is held until a government is formed that can actually govern.

I'm no fan of Harper's conservatives, but they can't really shut down the gov't for any meaningful amount of time.


Despite the flaws of our parliament, it works fairly well in comparison to the antics happening south of the border right now. We need reform of the election act, but the parliamentary process is better than most.
 
2013-10-07 12:28:14 PM
It really, really depresses me when the 'Smartest' comments are by people who claim to be disagreeing the the author when, in fact, they are in complete agreement.
 
2013-10-07 12:28:54 PM
What we are seeing is the affect of Citizens United.

The Tea Party was formed by a few billionaires and some millionaires, which were elected from the money raised this way.

Since this potential economic meltdown is via the Tea Party, it's therefore caused by Citizens United.
 
2013-10-07 12:29:50 PM

Lando Lincoln: Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling.


Pyr′rhic vic′tory
n.
a victory or goal achieved at too great a cost.

Let's look at other options before we go there.
 
2013-10-07 12:31:58 PM
I have no idea what that means.
 
2013-10-07 12:34:04 PM

Mouldy Squid: Despite the flaws of our parliament, it works fairly well in comparison to the antics happening south of the border right now. We need reform of the election act, but the parliamentary process is better than most.


I think there are really only two things we have to do.  First is look at how MPs are elected.  This first (filter ignore this!) past the post system only  works if there are two parties.  We need instant run off voting.  Also, there should be a number of non-riding federal seats available so that parties that can manage a significant percentage of the vote but can't get an MP elected in a riding can represent Canadians in parliament so that our parliament is more or less representative of the mix of Canadian political philosophy.

The other thing is to look at the Senate. I'm not saying it should necessarily be an elected Senate, but there should be a way to avoid political parties stacking it with ringers.  Maybe term limits or perhaps some way of limiting an ideological stacking of the Senate that doesn't serve Canadians.
 
2013-10-07 12:34:23 PM

red5ish: Lando Lincoln: Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling.

Pyr′rhic vic′tory
n.
a victory or goal achieved at too great a cost.

Let's look at other options before we go there.


I don't know.... Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.....
 
2013-10-07 12:34:31 PM

qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?

Because if we start doing that, maybe they'll realize they need to be better in order to keep their job.

How would that work if you're not applying any sort of discriminating criteria? If we're "voting them all out" then we're voting out the "good" representatives as well as the "bad representatives" while leaving in place all of the things that brought the "bad representatives" into the process in the first place, not to mention that most people's definition of "good representative" and "bad representative" is probably dependent on whether or not it's their Congressman in question.


There is actually a cogent theory behind why "voting them all out" would be beneficial.  Many people realize that power structures behind the scenes, long term influence from powerful lobby interests, and the general term "beltway insider" many times work against national interests to benefit themselves locally.  Immediate voting out of everyone tears down those power structures, and in the process, it makes it possible for decisions to be made for other reasons.  Banking interests, for instance, would lose a lot of protection, as there are factions in both parties distrustful of powerful bankers and still believing there should be accountability for the widespread risk frauds that spurred the economic collapse.

That said, it also means there is less control about the direction of the country and more potential for more extreme recklessness.  I'm much more for a "tear them all down and replace the house with 1-rep-per-70,000 system on proportional representation" which would dilute control far beyond the means of most large corporations to meaningfully contribute and fight the effects of gerrymandering long term.
 
2013-10-07 12:35:32 PM
on the next Real Politicians of Washington D.C.
 
2013-10-07 12:40:06 PM

red5ish: Lando Lincoln: Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling.

Pyr′rhic vic′tory
n.
a victory or goal achieved at too great a cost.

Let's look at other options before we go there.


It's the cost we're probably going to end up paying sooner or later, either now or a couple months down the road when we do all this yet again. Or a couple months beyond that, or a couple months beyond that, until we draw the line in the sand, at which point we default because the Tea Party is just that insane. If we're going to default, we might as well just do the damn thing now. We can't run from this forever.
 
2013-10-07 12:48:34 PM

qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?


Because they can't possibly be any worse?  And I mean ALL of them.
 
2013-10-07 12:49:50 PM

red5ish: Lando Lincoln: Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling.

Pyr′rhic vic′tory
n.
a victory or goal achieved at too great a cost.

Let's look at other options before we go there.


"Too great a cost" is a very subjective term.

The sooner we get this shiat over with, the less it's going to hurt. Let's light this crazy candle.

Of course, I say this because I'm old and don't really care that much. Young people probably don't feel the same way I do.
 
2013-10-07 12:53:05 PM

Lando Lincoln: The sooner we get this shiat over with, the less it's going to hurt. Let's light this crazy candle.

Of course, I say this because I'm old and don't really care that much. Young people probably don't feel the same way I do.


I'm 28. Let's light this candle.
 
2013-10-07 12:53:15 PM

Lando Lincoln: Young people probably don't feel the same way I do.


Damn straight we don't. I've got a lot of working years ahead of me and can't afford for the Tea Party to instigate then next Depression.
 
2013-10-07 12:54:26 PM

Gosling: Lando Lincoln: The sooner we get this shiat over with, the less it's going to hurt. Let's light this crazy candle.

Of course, I say this because I'm old and don't really care that much. Young people probably don't feel the same way I do.

I'm 28. Let's light this candle.


I'm 28 as well. Apparently it's not as settled a question for our generation as I thought. :)
 
2013-10-07 12:55:21 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?

Because they can't possibly be any worse?  And I mean ALL of them.


"cant possibly be any worse" is a very very very very very dangerous thing, its how you end up dead. Or worse.  I'm not saying fear should keep people from running out the incumbents.  But. Would a Tea Party supermajority be any better?  Or would it be worse?
 
2013-10-07 12:55:38 PM

Alphax: A blame game?  Only if you really, really dumb down the situation.


This.
 
2013-10-07 12:56:16 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Because they can't possibly be any worse?  And I mean ALL of them.


It's this kind of lazy thinking that got us in the mess we're in. What do you think happened in 2010?
 
2013-10-07 12:59:47 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Jormungandr: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.

The same goes for any party worldwide that tried to abolish single-payer care in a nation that already has it. Hence the insane wrangling over the ACA. Turns out people (even the poors!) don't like dying/going bankrupt over common medical issues.


I know, right? How dare they want to live. There really isn't any good argument against single payer, cheaper, more accessible, less leaving people to die of treatable illness. About the only argument against is "Well *I* can't buy my way to better care!"
 
2013-10-07 01:00:24 PM

Mercutio74: Mouldy Squid: Despite the flaws of our parliament, it works fairly well in comparison to the antics happening south of the border right now. We need reform of the election act, but the parliamentary process is better than most.

I think there are really only two things we have to do.  First is look at how MPs are elected.  This first (filter ignore this!) past the post system only  works if there are two parties.  We need instant run off voting.  Also, there should be a number of non-riding federal seats available so that parties that can manage a significant percentage of the vote but can't get an MP elected in a riding can represent Canadians in parliament so that our parliament is more or less representative of the mix of Canadian political philosophy.

The other thing is to look at the Senate. I'm not saying it should necessarily be an elected Senate, but there should be a way to avoid political parties stacking it with ringers.  Maybe term limits or perhaps some way of limiting an ideological stacking of the Senate that doesn't serve Canadians.


Both very good ideas. I agree that there are a significant number of Canadians whose political views are not represented by any of the three major parties. Perhaps PR voting might help with that. In any case, electoral reform is the most significant hurdle Canada needs to overcome otherwise we will always be stuck swinging between Liberal and Conservative governments.

As for the Senate, personally I would like to abolish it entirely. I know that this isn't feasible, but some sort of reform is needed there. An elected Senate will simply go the same way as general elections; Quebec and Ontario will decide, the rest of Canada doesn't matter.
 
2013-10-07 01:02:54 PM
I thought Ted Cruz was already giving us the Canadian perspective.
 
2013-10-07 01:12:11 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?

Because they can't possibly be any worse?  And I mean ALL of them.


"Don't ever challenge WORSE."  ~  B. Cosby
 
2013-10-07 01:25:40 PM

gopher321: In other words, Boehner is asking the White House for a deal, but he can forget about one with defunding of ObamaCare.

Sooo...to continue the foreign perspective, this is all just a game of chicken?


Fark it.

/Or, keep farking it.
 
2013-10-07 01:25:54 PM

From The Woods: Such a shame that people outside of the US don't realize the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with this...

this is completely at the feet of house Republicans, it was instigated by Cruz in the Senate but now Boehner is owning it so he can "look like the alpha" to those under his leadership.

Problem being, this high school pissing contest is playing with the full faith and credit of the "best country on earth", as if it's worth it to do this because the US is trying to catch up with Canada and everyone else in providing guaranteed healthcare for everyone.

Such a shame. If the country goes to hell because of the house republican's irresponsibility, they'll do what they always do and project, they'll shift blame onto the democrats. Yet the democrats aren't asking anything from the republicans. Just insane.

Really hoping I can escape this country sometime in the near future.


This is untrue. Democrats negotiated over the debt ceiling. This emboldened the other guys to keep doing this sort of thing. That is definitely the Democrats' fault. Everything else, including the first move to hold the economy hostage, that's all Republicans.
 
2013-10-07 01:27:09 PM
I'd like to nominate Jeff Props to run the Federal Reserve.
 
2013-10-07 01:30:16 PM

Jormungandr: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.


More than that, it's the equivalent of "tried to repeal the second amendment." Once you guys get public healthcare it will be politically untouchable and I suspect that the GOP knows this.
 
2013-10-07 01:40:03 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Jormungandr: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.

More than that, it's the equivalent of "tried to repeal the second amendment." Once you guys get public healthcare it will be politically untouchable and I suspect that the GOP knows this.


Affordable Healthcare scares them almost as much as what can come next, FREE (or single payer) healthcare.  It scares the shiat out of them.  They know what will happen when people get it.  Its not the cost, its not the loss of big business, its the name associated, its the big fat D thats stamped all over it.  People are going to see a doctor for the first time in decades, hell for some in their lives.

The American populace is going to shoot manjuice all over Obamacare, they are going to rub it all over themselves.  They are going to take that big D Obamacare and farking marry it.  Name their children after it, farking name their churches after it and have it tatood on their breast.  The republican knows the worst thing about Obamacare.  Obamacare means the R's have to move to the left or die off.

They will destroy this country, burn it to the farking ground.  They have to or they have no future.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to see a cornered Rat take out the country.
 
2013-10-07 01:44:36 PM
Canadian perspective

American perspective, too. For more than a few of you.

The fact is that if this country and the people who elected the Democrats would have taken the time to vocally support their efforts and tell the right wing to fark off a couple of years ago, we'd be a lot better off.

But no hurrdurr both sides are the same/ineffective/the same coin.

Jesus fark this shiat gets got old.
 
2013-10-07 01:47:06 PM

Lando Lincoln: But two things are clear in the budget impasse.

First, health reform is a signature piece of legislation for Obama. There is no chance that he would allow himself to be rolled on it by the Republicans.

Second, the Tea Party has broken constitutional convention in terms of the division of powers. They have provoked what amounts to a constitutional crisis. Such is the significance of the standoff that Obama cancelled an important trip to Asia to attend the APEC summit of heads of government.

Third, if Obama caves in to these lunatics, then it's opening the door to all kinds of future lunacy. A line in the sand must be drawn NOW.

"We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn HERE! This far, no further!" - Captain Jean Luc Obama


MY SIDES! well done, one internet to you, sir.
 
2013-10-07 04:26:52 PM
We do have one thing though that the Canadians don't which allows Obama to handle this situation unilaterally. He can invoke the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Never been used precisely that way but the text does say

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

The fun legal part here is the use of the word "including". While the intention of the amendment may have been specific to settling the debts from the Civil War, the amendment doesn't actually enumerate types of debt it just makes a point of specifying two types of debt that cannot be questioned.

So Obama would likely be justified legally in raising the debt ceiling by executive order using compliance with the 14th amendment and his duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the republic as legal cover for completely bypassing Congress on the debt ceiling issue.

/the budget on the other hand...
//God Bless you Sen. Cruz for single handedly derping so hard you drove yourself and the Tea Party off the edge of the flat earth you live on

img.fark.net
 
2013-10-07 04:33:17 PM
Declare that Granny's Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not essential services as long as you can use eminent domain to seize the house and put Granny in a home on welfare with whatever proceeds the public auction might produce. Declare you have seen the conservative light and are sore tempted to let their children and grandchildren take care of their own rather than subsidizing their fat white asses.

See the Tea Baggers run.

These people are mostly old or middle-aged White couples. They are the White Right-Wing Entitled. They suck the public teat a lot harder than the non-white urban poor and the poor rural white trash do because entitlements are proportional to the income and wealth of the voter classes. Whip that farking teat out of their mouths and stuff a boot in their faces to push them away from the public trough.

You might even be able to balance the budget with NO NEW TAXES if you were forced to carry through with the dark hints of giving the feckers what they claim they want--Government out of their pockets, out of their lives, and out of their business. The Government has got to know where it is greasing the wheels. Stop greasing. Simply hint you might stop greasing and downsize the government so that money no longer flows from rich Blue state liberals to rich Red state landowners, extraction industrialists and their peasant minions.

Do this in such a way that the more moderate and liberal Republicans heave a sigh of relief and cave.

How much money does the Federal Government transfer to the coffers of the States? In Canada, health is a provincial responsiblity but it is the Federal Government that pays the bills, likewise with education and many of the other entitlement programs. When the Feds cut transfers, the Provinces bleed.

I bet it works the same way in the US only with a lot more cotton-batten stuffed in the mouths of the State Governors and legislatures to dampen the whining.

Tis the very sport to see the Engineer hoist with his own petard.

Give the feckers what they "want" and give it to them hard. No more Government handouts.

Do they know the meaning of the words "means testing"?

Meh, maybe I am just blowing steam, but it beats exploding.

But the Tea Baggers, even more than the general mass of Republican and Libertarians, are the Hypocrite Party of the United States. Start calling upon them to put your money where their mouths are, namely back into your back pockets.
 
2013-10-07 04:36:31 PM
I'm putting my liberal money where your mouths are, conservatard suckers. Don't try and stop me! It's going back into my back pocket. It's going back into my wallet!

You fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't play my good nature for a chump forever.
 
2013-10-07 04:43:39 PM
But seriously. Are there ways the Federal Government can fund itself without going to Congress?

User fees?

Claw backs?

Means-testing?

Cutting something the Tea Baggers really love but which can't be justified on humanitarian, pacific or liberal grounds?

Are agricultural subsidies essential?

Are sales and auctions of public lands essential?

Is  access to government property (one third of the area of the United States, most of it in the West and Rockies) essential? I'm not talking the parks, I'm talking the mines and the forests and the lakes and aquifers that have made the Koch Brothers as rich as Soviet kleptocrats.

If you've only cut back 14% or so of Government spending, you're just not trying hard enough. That 86% can't all be essential--except to the grasping and the greedy and the hypocritical beneficiaries of Government largesse.

Kick the legs out from under a dozen billionaires and multi-millionaires, namely those who fund the Tea Party (the original Tea Party movement was, perhaps, briefly grass roots, but the metastasized monster you face now is pink fecking Astroturf).

Have some fun! Show some imagination as you pull the stops out and let the trough drain! Break some grabby fingers!
 
2013-10-07 06:02:56 PM

gopher321: In other words, Boehner is asking the White House for a deal, but he can forget about one with defunding of ObamaCare.

Sooo...to continue the foreign perspective, this is all just a game of chicken?


It's a game of lame chicken.
 
2013-10-07 10:21:55 PM
BSABSVC!
 
2013-10-07 11:20:49 PM

Jormungandr: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.


And yet when Harper started chipping away at our public healthcare by unilaterally changing the funding formula under the Health Accord, hardly anyone noticed. The difference between Harper and the Tea Party is he knows he wouldn't have been elected on a promise to destroy public healthcare, so rather than shouting it from the rooftops he goes at it in stealth mode.
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report