Obama Government Shutdown?

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, you're the lawyer who has stated that there is no value in adhering to the Constitution, since it's out-of-date, and some dudes in 1789 forming a contract for several States to adopt a sort of unified (federal) government with effective, designated powers, didn't know squat and should conveniently be ignored at whim by yourself and the whole modern flotilla of lawyers, judges, bureaucrats and anyone else with money enough to buy a better way of management. . . . uuuuhhhhmmmm....... well, yes you might not have said it just like that, but that is what you meant.

I think you misinterpret. There is value to the Constitution insofar as it provides some stable rules of agreement that are predictable. I do not believe that stability, however, is the primary and overriding factor that should trump the fact that we, as a people, know a lot more in 2013 than we did in 1789. That's not to say that those men in 1789 were dumb (although some were specifically kind of out to lunch) but it is to say that they don't get to have their opinions and ideas held holy. They do not win all arguments on the basis that they were there in 1789. The adherence to a brightline rule like "whatever the framers thought at the time wins" is, at best, intellectually incredibly lazy and at worst a futile exercise in mind-reading, spirit consultation, and blind guessing.

Everyone in Washington has known, for years not just weeks, that Obama and Harry Reid will use every device they can, to block curbs on their spending agenda originating in the House, and that the House will cave after a suitably impressive tea-party "rally", even though a majority of Americans don't want the deficits or Obamacare, and never did.

Disagree, I suggest you take a look at what has happened to federal budgets since 2009. If Obama is fighting tooth and nail to resist cuts then he's terrible at his job.

The poll numbers on Obamacare are a talking point that is often misstated. I suggest you figure out what the numbers look like if you subtract all of those who say they don't have an opinion on the matter or don't know their opinion. You'll find plurality support for the ACA. There is also some marked difference in polling numbers depending on if you phrase the legislation as "Obamacare" or "Affordable Care Act" even though they are the exact same thing. When phrased that way it goes into a majority approve status.

you have stated that you were a federal court clerk, which probably does give you more of a knowledge base on the internal operations of government, and it is apparent to me that you know more about the procedures in the House and Senate than I do, because all I know is that a lot of things just don't look like they serve my interests, and do serve the interests of some few folks with a lot of clout.

Different branches of government. I have never had a judicial issue that hinged on legislative branch rules because those are all internally interpreted and executed. To the extent that your point is that I'm more easily able to interpret how the sausage is made you're probably correct.

I do think that Harry Reid has used his position of favor with the President, the press, and other more influential interests to do some things that are not right, and which rank orders of magnitude greater than whatever was done that was the basis of your post, the video of some folks doing a publicity show-and-tell take down of the House temporary provision you were talking about. And that little video was all about "re-opening democracy" in case you didn't really watch it. It must have been on a talking points list you were obediently spreading out to the masses if you can with a straight, even lawyer, face assert that my mention of it is some kind of "scarecrow" because it was what your post used as a basis for your comment.

Gotcha, I was focused on the meat of what was being demonstrated (the rule change) rather than the rhetoric used to demonstrate it, so I didn't recall anything about "re-opening democracy."

Obviously you are not listing these items that are "orders of magnitude" worse other than the passage of the ACA itself so I can't really respond to whatever procedural complaints you have. I discussed "filling the tree" (the colloquial name for the senate majority leader blocking amendments by filling all the amendment slots) at some length in a previous post and made a number of distinctions, but I understand you prefer to speak in high and lofty rhetoric than get down in the weeds at that level.

Lawyers are usually really good at talking around concise points until nobody even knows what they're talking about, and can even talk enough to make people think they know what they are talking about. But to my point, your typically "liberal" rhetoric of personal attacks, however well-crafted and laced with insults, is no excuse for Harry Reid.

Harry Reid used his power to make it difficult for people to know or react to the ACA while it was on his table. Over two thousand pages of law the Senators, nor the Congressmen, even had time to read, and he got it passed on Obama's orders in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve, on a line of stealth tactics that included giving some special favors to some states and some "representatives" that were essentially "bribes".

The law was debated publicly for months and drafts were passed back and forth between both parties for ages. Did we already forget the weeks of everyone trying to figure out what exactly they had to do to get Susan Collins to vote for the bill? Or all the waffling by Ben Nelson? Acting like this was jammed through and no one knew what was going on is completely absurd and ignores all the weeks spent on this issue at the time.

You are obviously committed to your "progressive" political views and are willing to take to the trenches to fight for the fashionable ideal of "progress". People who understand only poorly what all is being done, who have little informed press or media that will bring them up to speed honestly, are, in my opinion, understandably alarmed.

Let's poor out a 40 for the poor, confused, low-information voter.

But my point stands, regardless of the technicalities, that both the moderate Republicans like Romney and most of the Democrats in our Legislature are no innocents when it comes to political tactics, and the little charade of temporary House rule barring anyone from offering amendments to a certain float of legislation without Eric Cantor's approval, is of minuscule importance when compared with all that has been done to promote the progressive agenda in a virtual absence of public understanding.

Your point does not stand insofar as a) the video I posted was not about amendments at all and b) you've yet to provide any examples or meaningfully engage on any parallel tactics even though I handed you one possible argument. Simply asserting something does mean that your "point stands, regardless of the technicalities." Although I'm starting to see why you are so empathetic to the low-information citizen.

you and the general class of informed progressives actually do not want to be bothered by what the "ignorant masses" think or want. If you did, you would understand the basic fairness of my response asking you demand that Harry Reid should permit amendments to Obamacare, including a delay of the personal mandates, and the budget to be proposed and debated in the Senate.

There have been multiple amendments and delays to the ACA. You may recall debates over small-employer waivers in 2011, the delay of the employer mandate entirely earlier this year, and adjustments in medicare coverage payouts to healthcare providers. Several of these pushes were concessions to GOP concerns. I think you're just repeating things you've heard rather than actually learning anything about the process of what has happened to date.

The ACA is the worst piece of legislation in American History,

Yes. Definitely worse than the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, or the Volstead Act.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Dude....

 

[babe]

@BabyPeterzz. . . . cool, man.

@kicky. . . . thanks for the response. A lot of food for thought for me. But, straight to the jokes. . . . . I am fundamentally hostile to the ACA because of "connections" with the medical caregiving community, but mostly because I want my life and death issues in my own hands, and I want to pick my own doctors and medicines. As a one-time aspiring medicinal chemistry student and lab tech researcher, I bailed from that professional aspiration in frustration working with a start-up company with an anti-cancer agent facing the inside track "competition". I view the big pharma outfits as deeply corrupt and possessed by medieval alchemy hallucinations, but which are nevertheless a little wholly-owned side-cartel of the oil giants.

It would take a lot of posts to build the case, nail by nail, about how the ACA is actually genocidal and designed as a step towards . . .depopulation, because it will be developed as a platform for rationing care. . . . and will result in a lot a caregivers "retiring" while supposedly meeting an increased demand. . . . but until you could actually assimilate all that information I'd suggest you defer your judgment and jokes about how nothing could be worse than the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, or the Volstead Act. uhhhhmmmm. . . . nevermind. . . . I like jokes. Have all the fun you can on me. Be prepared to take a few yourself. . . .

I'm sure I could learn a lot from you about these things

 

[babe]

First installment on a response to Kicky. . . .. sorry, I do have a "job" even if I work for myself. . . . . I have to ration my time in here. . . .

I think you misinterpret. There is value to the Constitution insofar as it provides some stable rules of agreement that are predictable. I do not believe that stability, however, is the primary and overriding factor that should trump the fact that we, as a people, know a lot more in 2013 than we did in 1789. That's not to say that those men in 1789 were dumb (although some were specifically kind of out to lunch) but it is to say that they don't get to have their opinions and ideas held holy. They do not win all arguments on the basis that they were there in 1789. The adherence to a brightline rule like "whatever the framers thought at the time wins" is, at best, intellectually incredibly lazy and at worst a futile exercise in mind-reading, spirit consultation, and blind guessing.

OK, so this is something of a more refined statement of your thinking. It is understandable and appears to be reasonable, and is probably more representative of smarter "progressive" thought.

Once in a while I listen to Mark Levin, who was also a federal court clerk. . . . he did his clerking at the Supreme Court, and was as a youngster of sorts some kind of Ronald Reagan team-member. He's more angry than I am at the way our existing Constitution is conveniently discounted at every turn in the road, and has proposed some Amendments to bring us back towards a government actually respectful of people's rights. . . . .but for now I just want to deal with the part of this discussion where it's about the relative virtue or intelligence or appropriateness of whether we should reverence original intent or forge ahead confidently on our modern superiority. . . .

I will just question the assumption that we have evolved inside three hundred years and ascended up the IQ tree by any measurable degree of innate intelligence, and agree that any body of "framers", "interpreters", or "modifiers" of our Constitution will likely include some questionable individuals. The Constitutional Convention included all kinds of people, representing diverse interests. What they came up with was a compromise on every ideal or notion of governance.

Their experience base consisted of their dealings with a particular bizarre and arrogant set of governmental overseers installed by the British Crown or Parliament, under the influence of an international-scale corporate giant of that day called the British Far East Trading Company, and other British trade interests, which were in fact the very special and very direct involved parties in the slave trade, the opium trade. And they are in fact the very special antecedents of our present-day UN fascists. I will proceed in the course of time to make direct comparisons in the thinking of those Colonial overlords and our "progressive" managerial crowd today. . . ..

The reason there was an American revolution was because of excessive arrogance on the part of the Colonial overlords in the colonies, to the effect of denying American citizens their rights under the British Magna Carta.

I will be happy if we can as human beings maintain those significant rights, and maybe a few other now-apparently necessary rights under modern government.

So let's cut to the chase. . . . the "Right to Life" . . . . does that have status as a fundamental human right? Does that mean people should be able to choose their doctor, and their medicine, and spend their own dollars according to their own choice on the medical care that's necessary to maintain, or try to maintain, their mortal existence?

As a personal disclaimer, let me just here state that in the past two years, under the existing state of our medical care system I've seen some deplorable things. First-hand, not on my own care but on the care of a family member. . . . diagnosed with cancer, having a good doctor who tried to get approval for a diagnostic test that's on the cutting edge. It was denied by the insurance carrier. Treatment was also delayed by six weeks due to unavailability of the necessary materials for treatment. Months later the whole plan of treatment was changed because of conditions being discovered which the diagnostic test ordered, and denied, at the outset, would have revealed. As a beginning point of comparison, our insurance companies, on cost-containment logic, made a huge mistake that ended up nearly costing a human life. . . . maybe costing years off a human life. . . . because of a high-level decision which at least one very good doctor and one very well-informed patient actually would have done better making themselves.

Under the ACA, the policy-level or management-level decisions will practically ensure that no one can make a better decision, and will practically ensure that progress towards improved methods slows down to a snail's pace. . . .

It continues, to this present day, to be an immense human issue of whether we people should have inviolable rights to make decisions for ourselves on issues that affect our immediate survival, our very lives.