What I don't understand about the shutdown

[dank69]

"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government....This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect, every just and salutary measure."

-James Madison, Federalist #58

Libertarian quoting a Federalist to support his position? How can you show your face at the local gun club?

 

[Jhhnn]

That could be explained based on voter turnout rather than gerrymandering. Maybe normal Republican voters decided they didn't like Romney so they chose not to vote.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html

That doesn't explain the composition of the HOR in the slightest. Gerrymandering does.

 

[K1052]

See this is where the public's vote shows its contradictory nature. On one hand, the public votes back in the President that brought the ACA, signalling they are happy with it. Then they turn around and vote in a Republican majority, with a heavy dose of Tea Party Conservatives, into the House, which has the traditional authority to set appropriations (budget), signalling their disapproval of ACA.

Now, some of you have said "the American people have spoken and approve it by re-electing Obama", while others could point to the House and say "No, the people have spoken and don't approve it by electing a majority of Conservatives in the House."

The electoral situation in the House is more complex than that because aggressive redistricting has created a large block of safe seats that don't accurately represent the "will of the people". The Democrats gained seats in both houses in the last election. The big GOP gains happened in 2010. If the American public really wanted to see the ACA gone then a different person would be sitting in the White House and a different party in control of the Senate.

The polling is not favorable for the GOP. People don't want the government shut down and most of them are blaming the GOP for doing it by 10 points or so. The Tea Party caucus may not care because their seats are safe regardless but this will cost the rest of the party dearly going forward.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That doesn't explain the composition of the HOR in the slightest. Gerrymandering does.

Yeah, no way 42% of the voters who decided not to vote would have any effect on the results.

Gerrymandering must be the DailyKOS buzzword of the month for Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.

 

[Paratus]

See this is where the public's vote shows its contradictory nature. On one hand, the public votes back in the President that brought the ACA, signalling they are happy with it. Then they turn around and vote in a Republican majority, with a heavy dose of Tea Party Conservatives, into the House, which has the traditional authority to set appropriations (budget), signalling their disapproval of ACA.

Now, some of you have said "the American people have spoken and approve it by re-electing Obama", while others could point to the House and say "No, the people have spoken and don't approve it by electing a majority of Conservatives in the House."

Obama was a national campaign, the House is local. If you believe the Daily Show. Congress, due to gerrymandering, has a 90% incumbency rate, but a 10% approval rating.

Outside of working with Obama, there is literally no way for many of the most obstructionist conservatives to be voted out of office.

So it's truer to say conservatives in the house have local support, while Obama and other moderates have national support per the last election.

 

[momeNt]

With the amount of federal laws controlling everything we are losing much of the state level granular control that we used to have.

From state to state there are so few meaningful differences. The government shutdowns, increasing contempt for opposing political parties, and disconnectedness of the economic classes in America are all signs that our changes are too broad and affecting too many unwilling people.


State level control would afford more political identity to the individual person and increase satisfaction for Americas as a whole.

 

[BUnit1701]

Usually with these things, and difference of opinion. Who is right? Who is wrong?
Usually with these things people on both sides want to see hard proof to support their side winning vs losing. Who was right? Which side has the hard proof?
Well....
This whole thing is about ACA, or FYI, Obamacare.
And the only hard proof I can see is the ACA website crashing because so many millions seek to join up. The massive hits the site is taking with overwhelming the system.
And in states, one for example, CA, so far thousands have succeeded in signing up.
Correct me if it were actually millions in CA.

Republicans, on the other hand, well I should say the biggest mouthed republicans, swore no one would be interested in Obamacare. No one wants it. No one will join. The people reject this concept.
Well....
The proof is in the pudding.
And this pudding tastes pretty successful for ACA popularity among the hungry.
Like I said earlier, this isn't just all granny's needing hip replacements signing up for ACA.
I have become 100% convinced that when the data is analyzed, 80% will be average American citizens under the age of 28 that are signing up for ACA.
The very young folks that the right wing republicans claimed had no interest in affordable healthcare, or desire to buy it.
The very segment that were told would have no interest, will in fact be the major group signing up for ACA ie Obamacare.

I beg to differ.

LA Times:
California exchange overstated its Web traffic for Obamacare launch

514,000 unique visitors instead of the 5 million they were claiming yesterday.


UK Daily Mail:
Less than 1% of visitors are signing up for Obamacare on state health exchange websites

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-health-exchange-websites.html#ixzz2gfXHsBKC

​

 

[EagleKeeper]

That doesn't explain the composition of the HOR in the slightest. Gerrymandering does.

The Dems put themselves in such a position that is considered to be gerrymandering by stuffing themselves into the existing districts to a 90% level.

Seeing as they only need 55% in a district; the extra 35% is being wasted for political influence.
It allows them to control the urban areas but lose the suburban and rural districts.

The number of districts is controlled by the census. But because of the high urban density and the need to draw boundaries; the Democrats get compressed.

Within a state wide election the urban carries an influence; within a local election; such an influence is diluted. Nothing stops the extra majority in an urban area from moving into a suburban area to increase the political count; but jobs and community apparently are more important that being a political pawn.

Similar to the way the Electoral collage was designed. Prevents the majority from stomping all over the minority.

The House was intended to actually be a reflection of the people; so it is doing as intended. One can call it gerrymandering; however, it seems as if the population is asking for some checks and balances.

I am sure the Dems would like to redraw districts when they have the chance and are in control of the process. I have seen in Mass where when a district is lost; all sorts of shenanigans happen to ensure that districts are not sliced up to much.

I have also seen that when a district is added; the slicing is done to protect the incumbent (if the incumbent is of party) before trying to follow boundaries. When the incumbent is not of party; blocks of voters are shifted to help/hurt other districts.

 

[cubby1223]

You ignore a very important factor- Gerrymandering.

In the backlash election of 2010, Repubs took over many state houses, reapportioned to suit their own partisan purposes. More people voted for Dems in 2012 than for Repubs-

If the Republicans don't Gerrymander, then the Democrats will Gerrymander and take control of the government. Democrats used Gerrymandering to win a super-majority in my state of Illinois's state government. The Dems rewrote the districts to pit incumbent Republicans from different districts into the same district so they have to face each other in the primary (leaving the other rewritten district as an open election, giving a Democrat a higher chance of winning).

Democrats give the argument that they are Gerrymandering to ensure an accurate representation of the people in their elected officials, and partisan hacks believe it for some reason...

 

[K1052]

If the Republicans don't Gerrymander, then the Democrats will Gerrymander and take control of the government. Democrats used Gerrymandering to win a super-majority in my state of Illinois's state government. The Dems rewrote the districts to pit incumbent Republicans from different districts into the same district so they have to face each other in the primary (leaving the other rewritten district as an open election, giving a Democrat a higher chance of winning).

Democrats give the argument that they are Gerrymandering to ensure an accurate representation of the people in their elected officials, and partisan hacks believe it for some reason...

Because two wrongs make a right. I don't see anyone in here supporting Democratic gerrymandering.

The Presidential election was the closest thing possible to a plebiscite on Obamacare. Romney largely ran his campaign based on opposing it yet he and his party were not favored in the outcomes. To then claim a mandate for pushing said rejected platform by these means is a pretty dubious effort.

 

[boomerang]

If the Republicans don't Gerrymander, then the Democrats will Gerrymander and take control of the government. Democrats used Gerrymandering to win a super-majority in my state of Illinois's state government. The Dems rewrote the districts to pit incumbent Republicans from different districts into the same district so they have to face each other in the primary (leaving the other rewritten district as an open election, giving a Democrat a higher chance of winning).

Democrats give the argument that they are Gerrymandering to ensure an accurate representation of the people in their elected officials, and partisan hacks believe it for some reason...

I sometimes wonder if a majority will ever figure out that there are no "sides" here. Republican, Democrat, they are essentially the same. Some are predicting a downfall of the Republican party. Well good! Both need to go away. While it would be very convenient to have them both fold at the same time, it's unrealistic. I'm confident that an unfettered Democrat party will implode within itself in a short time. The nation will probably fall with it. This would also be the case with an unfettered Republican party. The needs of the nation (the people) took a back seat a long, long time ago.

Sometimes to get what you need you have to tear down what you have.

 

[Unoid]

So ACA is already signed into law. It has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court as legal. The American public has had a chance to throw it out via the presidential election last year.

Why on earth should Obama accept anything from republicans to tear this law down? The republicans had their chance and failed to overturn it. It's foolish to attempt so now, and even more foolish to tie government shutdown to this.

The democrats don't need to compromise on anything. The American people have spoken and ACA is here to stay. This is all a giant waste of time and I can't see this possibly helping the republicans long term chances of being a viable national party. There are some seriously stupid people running the GOP these days.

Actually the american people don't want ACA nor have wanted it. Especially the white men who make the most money in our country. Disparagingly blacks, Hispanics and women approve of ACA, Overall American's disapprove.
http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

 

[Zaap]

Libertarian quoting a Federalist to support his position? How can you show your face at the local gun club?

Wait, gun clubs hate the person who drafted the 2nd amendment? :/

 

[dank69]

Wait, gun clubs hate the person who drafted the 2nd amendment? :/

I get Schneider and Anarchist confused all the time. I know one of them doesn't like the federalists.

However, I bet Schneider would change his tune real fast if the Dems were refusing to fund the government until the 2nd was repealed.

 

[schneiderguy]

Libertarian quoting a Federalist to support his position? How can you show your face at the local gun club?

The Federal Government, as originally described in the United States Constitution, is perfectly fine with me and I don't believe I have ever said otherwise.

 

[schneiderguy]

However, I bet Schneider would change his tune real fast if the Dems were refusing to fund the government until the 2nd was repealed.

I don't care if the government shuts down.

 

[shadow9d9]

The people who passed the bill didn't get to read it. Had they, it would have been voted out on it's ass. They were told to pass it, "then you can find out what's in it". This is akin to saying, buy this great car Bill, just trust me on this. Sign the paperwork, cut the check, then I'll show it to you later. Everyone got stove piped, but out of party allegiance, there is nobody in the Democratic party that is going to stand up against their Dear Leader.

Now you have men of conscience who are saying this is not right and fair to the American people. We have a president who basically says "my way or the highway". We have Harry Reid also echoing, "no negotiations". When America is getting ready to be hit by the biggest cram down your throats, crony, program ever, what exactly do you expect men of good conscience to do? Shut these fuckers down, call them on their bullshit. Approve CR for essential services, don't let people starve, but stand your ground. The liberals are ass raping this country every day. Conservative leadership is going to be the only way we stop the money printing presses and stop borrowing beyond our means. Sick of the little fucking brats that think the government owes them something and should just continue to borrow and spend like an out of control rich parent's college student. They are simply putting on the brakes.

We have created a society of government dependent morons. We have created a main stream media that ensures that most of America remains dead to reality. It is no wonder at all that the left wing media hosts such shows as the kardashians, Honey Boo Boo and all the Real Housewives. God forbid, if people would stop fantasizing about living in mansions, wearing huge diamond rings & driving Bentley's, they might actually see what destruction is going on around them, caused by our elected officials.

Ok...that's your 3am rant for now. Have a nice day folks!

The bill was debated and written for a year with over 100 republican amendments. There was plenty of time to read it.

The quoted republican talking point only works for people without a brain... The american PEOPLE would not find out what was really in it until the republican bullshit had died down for a bit, when passed. Notice how there are no death panels? THAT is what the quote refers to.

If you are so easily swayed by a braindead talking point aimed at people like you who can't/won't think for themselves, you seriously need to reconsider your place in life.

 

[shadow9d9]

I get Schneider and Anarchist confused all the time. I know one of them doesn't like the federalists.

However, I bet Schneider would change his tune real fast if the Dems were refusing to fund the government until the 2nd was repealed.

You can "bet" all you'd like. It is just another way of saying that you are willing to make something up and present it as fact.

 

[shadow9d9]

I beg to differ.

LA Times:
California exchange overstated its Web traffic for Obamacare launch

514,000 unique visitors instead of the 5 million they were claiming yesterday.


UK Daily Mail:
Less than 1% of visitors are signing up for Obamacare on state health exchange websites

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-health-exchange-websites.html#ixzz2gfXHsBKC

​

Did you seriously just try to quote dailyfail as a reliable source?

 

[ivwshane]

The Dems put themselves in such a position that is considered to be gerrymandering by stuffing themselves into the existing districts to a 90% level.

Seeing as they only need 55% in a district; the extra 35% is being wasted for political influence.
It allows them to control the urban areas but lose the suburban and rural districts.

The number of districts is controlled by the census. But because of the high urban density and the need to draw boundaries; the Democrats get compressed.

Within a state wide election the urban carries an influence; within a local election; such an influence is diluted. Nothing stops the extra majority in an urban area from moving into a suburban area to increase the political count; but jobs and community apparently are more important that being a political pawn.

Similar to the way the Electoral collage was designed. Prevents the majority from stomping all over the minority.

The House was intended to actually be a reflection of the people; so it is doing as intended. One can call it gerrymandering; however, it seems as if the population is asking for some checks and balances.

I am sure the Dems would like to redraw districts when they have the chance and are in control of the process. I have seen in Mass where when a district is lost; all sorts of shenanigans happen to ensure that districts are not sliced up to much.

I have also seen that when a district is added; the slicing is done to protect the incumbent (if the incumbent is of party) before trying to follow boundaries. When the incumbent is not of party; blocks of voters are shifted to help/hurt other districts.

I know in my state, dem controlled, the people voted to have districts redrawn by an independent group consisting of democrats and republucans and independents. So I'll call bullshit on the bolded.

 

[dank69]

I don't care if the government shuts down.

That wasn't really my point. The point was that you would think the Democrats would be foolish to do so in order to attempt to get the 2nd repealed, or limited further.

 

[dank69]

You can "bet" all you'd like. It is just another way of saying that you are willing to make something up and present it as fact.

We'll have to see what he says.

 

[Zaap]

That wasn't really my point. The point was that you would think the Democrats would be foolish to do so in order to attempt to get the 2nd repealed, or limited further.

So the criticism is someone thinks politicians might do foolish things in order to get what they want? I'm shocked!

I personally think the Democrats (and Republicans) are foolish in ALL they do currently to try and evade the constitution. The irony is, if they actually tried to repeal/amend it rather than just constantly evade it as it stands, that'd actually be the correct legal course.

We'll have to see what he says.

Well, until then you could always put words in his mouth, which seems to be what you're hell bent on for whatever reason.

 

[BUnit1701]

Did you seriously just try to quote dailyfail as a reliable source?

Care to provide some evidence they are not reliable?

 

[schneiderguy]

That wasn't really my point. The point was that you would think the Democrats would be foolish to do so in order to attempt to get the 2nd repealed, or limited further.

Foolish in the sense that it would hurt their re-election chances, sure. I think the current shutdown will hurt the Republicans in 2014. For some reason the majority of people seem to think that most of what the Federal government does is actually necessary and beneficial to the country.

Other than that, I would never consider it foolish to defund the bloated monster we call the Federal government, regardless of the reason.