Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

United States Government Shutdown

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 3:29pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,259 posts

Knight

Ah, this is nice. Controversy amongst political ideals. *inhales* That's delicious.

I don't think the Syria topic is really linked with the shutdown, if I'm not wrong.

Oh I'm not saying that is any relation between the two cases, I'm just saying that the U.S Government has not got it's priorities straight if one week they consider war and the next they shut down (I know it is actually a bit longer then a week).

The Tea Party is responsible for this mess and like I said in the other thread, if the Republicans have any smart people left in their party they need to get rid of these Tea Party idiots because they not only ruin it for them, they are causing trouble to all Americans.

What I heard is there's normally a budget committee that's supposed to reach an agreement so this sort of thing doesn't happen, but the Dems wouldn't negotiate, so it didn't pass.

Why would the Democrats not negotiate? Don't these people consider how their actions effect the economy let alone the whole government itself? If they just flat out said no then it is no wonder the government shutdown. What is the risk for the Democrats for negotiating?

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 3:36pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Neither side wants to be seen as giving in to the other - so neither side does. It's why the House passed the bill they did. It's why Harry Reid declared said bill dead-on-arrival in the Senate. And why the Senate passed a bill knowing it would fail the house.

So anyone who is naive enough to put the blame solely on one party or the other is more partisan than Washington. Both parties failed - Republican and Democrat. Calling one or the other names and what not is just what got us into this mess in the first place. :/

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 4:55pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Then why is it working fine for other countries such as Denmark and Norway? Why wouldn't it work for the US?

That's kind of a fallacy. What works for some people group will not work for everyone. People are raised differently, with different ideals, in different religions, and what they expect from their government differs in that sense. And, believe it or not, different governments work for different people.

In essence, some people want to earn what they have and give to who they want (something called investing), while others want to be 'fair' and let the government control the means of the population. Obviously, these two different people groups don't match and couldn't ever. Even though it is the point of having a democracy, you'll still end up with an unsatisfied people group either way, and you'll have situations like this.

A world where everything is 'unified' is a scary world.

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 5:47pm

SSTG

SSTG

11,054 posts

Knight

So anyone who is naive enough to put the blame solely on one party or the other is more partisan than Washington. Both parties failed - Republican and Democrat. Calling one or the other names and what not is just what got us into this mess in the first place. :/

Yep it's a vicious circle, Fox news come up with BS and Liberal media laugh at them which keep the people divided and hate each other.

I think government should intervene when some people, in the name of Freedom, abuse the freedom of others.

For example, Republicans keep talking about Free Market and how wonderful it is.
Isn't Free Market supposed to encourage competition?
Then why is it okay for publishing companies to hike the book prices and work together to keep the cost higher instead of offering better deals for the customers?
I think the government should intervene when companies abuse of their power.

Big companies buy smaller ones so they can control everything and kill the competition, that's not Free market if the customers don't benefit in the end.

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 9:01pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

The closest the Us has ever been to a true laissez-faire type economy was around the 1880's, in the age of the Robber Barons. Since then, we've evolved into more of a mixed economy. In my ideal world, you'd have most of the Government's minor roles (mail delivery, AMTRAC, etc) privatized, and regulation would exist to keep the market free for businesses and consumers alike.

As for media outlets, I ussually check my FOX and MSNBC apps so I can laugh at the opinion pieces, then I go over to CNN, BBC, RT, and Al-Jazeera English. By the  I've seen enough view points to make my own opinion about things. Ussually top it off with regular checks on Drudge throughout the day, for misc news.

I'd like for Obama to have an open door meeting with Senate and House leaders from both sides of the aisle, with a command that nobody will leave the room until they work something else. But I'll eat my foot if that ever happens. And you can quote me on that.

 

Posted Oct 6, '13 at 1:38am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,982 posts

I think government should intervene when some people, in the name of Freedom, abuse the freedom of others.

Then their intervention gets considered abuse itself.

Big companies buy smaller ones so they can control everything and kill the competition, that's not Free market if the customers don't benefit in the end.

But it seems that the customer does benefit most of the time. For example, Wal-Mart allows the consumers to keep more money in their pockets than if they bought identical/similar products elsewhere. If the customer didn't feel a benefit, they wouldn't shop there and the company wouldn't get big.

I'd like for Obama to have an open door meeting with Senate and House leaders from both sides of the aisle, with a command that nobody will leave the room until they work something else.

Progress in Congress? Ain't nobody got time fo' dat!

But I'll eat my foot if that ever happens. And you can quote me on that.

Just in case, feet pair nicely with a good Bordeaux.

 

Posted Oct 6, '13 at 3:48am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Let's face it: The government is simply being childish.
The Democrats, and Harry Reid in particular, are basically saying "If we can't have what we want, we're going to spoil it all for everyone else."

That is what the Republicans are going. This has the support of congress and the supreme court, it's not the Dems being childish here. Even other Republicans are admitting to this being on the Republican's side.

“Republicans have to realize how many significant gains we’ve made over the last three years, and we have " not only in cutting spending but in really turning the tide on a lot of things,” Representative Dennis Ross, Republican of Florida, said on Saturday. “We can’t lose all that when there’s no connection now between the shutdown and the funding of Obamacare.”

He added: “I think now it’s a lot about pride.”

source

 

Posted Oct 14, '13 at 12:49pm

09philj

09philj

1,165 posts

I agree. The republicans would rather see the country go bankrupt than accept any concessions for poorer people, or anything else that could raise the ridiculously low taxes the U.S. has given itself.

I don't see a need for such low taxes. The people just end paying for the same services, but to private companies and not the government, and unlike the government, the private companies are more interested in profit than the well being of the public.

 

Posted Oct 14, '13 at 3:37pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,676 posts

 

Posted Oct 14, '13 at 7:13pm

rychus

rychus

1,198 posts

Because of the Government Shutdown, my parents are receiving IOU's from their work at a Government hospital. :/
Isn't the main reason ObamaCare?

 
Reply to United States Government Shutdown

You must be logged in to post a reply!