Would any of you prefer it if the United States became a dictatorship?

What makes you think it isnt already?Dictates the pace for the rest of the world anyways.

USA is only intervening in the middle east, Russia and China do nothing cos their society is not really under attack in the same way the west is.

By large due to most foreigners not wanting to live in their country so its easier to keep control of your borders/community. Western life is much much more complex (and will one day pay the price for letting in so much incomparable scum), until then, we have to keep it under lid, until the civil wars start at least and the people take back control after realizing their spineless leaders are ruining their shit.

n1 capitalistas!

canada > usa

Canada always is bestest

Basically, terrorism.

i have no idea whats going on

"Even though the only product of Obama's economic policies has been a massive increase in poverty and dependency in America, Obama continues to either demand more of the same or ignore any attempt to bring those the Obama economy pushed into poverty back into the American economic mainstream. With real unemployment running at 14%, Obama is telling us how great the recovery is" ...

Read and burn, babe. In silence.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/what_d...about.html

Makes a reference to an ultra right web site. American thinker indeed.

I think kdawg or Ron Paul should be in charge.

Now, I dislike the Republicans as much as the Democrats, but the whole narrative is just silly. PROOF

good ammo.

How is that proof of the "narrative" being silly? Those are examples of Republicans passing bills they know very well will not pass the Senate because they do not fund the ACA, in order to be able to blame Democrats when Republicans are the ones who are refusing to go with the baseline (which includes the ACA).

I bet the partisan tactics would just be switched around if the funding were to be directed to bombing some innocent Muslims instead of cocking up health insurance. That's what I'm sure of. What I am fairly confident is that you'd still be spinning it the way to make the Dems look good.

Oh, and the bigger reason why it's silly is to call the whole farce a shutdown. 15% of govt employees have been granted a paid vacation. What a shutdown.

Actually, recent history tells us otherwise - at no point during the Bush presidency did Democrats force a shutdown - or a last-minute debt ceiling fight of the kind we witnessed in 2011 and are witnessing today. You have to go back more than two decades to find examples of actual (post-1981) shutdowns happening because of the Democrats, and they never lasted more than five days.

Nobody's "spinning" anything - I'm pointing out to you that this kind of strategy by the Republicans does not fall in the realm of normal negotiating processes. The same would be true if it was Democrats in the Republicans' position. I'm not trying to make the Democrats look good - facts simply happen to show Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, since they're the ones who are adopting the aforementioned strategy of using a government shutdown and the debt limit to try to get Democrats to give them what they want.

Yeah, I'm sure the shutdown looks like a joke all the way from your armchair. Meanwhile, in the real world, its economic impact is already being felt.

What a surreal sentence at the end. About 15% of govt employees are sent temporarily home, then a bill is passed to pay them anyway, some national parks are closed instead of true wasteful spending being cut so that it is absolutely certain citizens notice that something has been cut at all and you warrant a term "shutdown" for it, despite the federal government having almost 2 trillion dollars if that were to continue for the whole year (it will be over in a few days obviously). Holy smokes I'm in awe that the Statue of Liberty hasn't collapsed yet.

Society is coming to an end. I'm hiding in my bathtub right now fearing for the worst.

I can't help but notice you did not reply to my first two paragraphs, so if you agree with me on those points I'm happy to hear it.

With regards to the cost of the shutdown, of course you're going to mention the most "minor" issue (well, it's still lost tourism revenue). Nobody's equating the shutdown with the apocalypse, but it's certainly not simply a minor annoyance either, and some people are hit more than others. Reducing it to a "paid vacation" is idiotic.

Funny how four of the hardships mentioned in that article were addressed in the bills that didn't pass the Senate that I've pasted above. Those merciless Democrats.

I haven't reduced it to paid vacation. Don't imagine stuff. Aside from that, hyperbolizing this all the way up to a "shutdown of government" is infinitely more idiotic and a masterpiece in scare tactics.

Pertaining to the other paragraphs, the Democrats have dug up their heels just as much with the "ObamaCare or nothing" approach as the Republicans. The reason I've skipped it is that I find the whole discussion moot. The divide between both parties is skin-deep. They will be back in business the next week, leeching valuable resources to be squandered.

Of course Democrats are not going to agree to pass countless piecemeal funding bills. If they did Republicans would simply fund the entire government through piecemeal legislation except for the ACA.

You called it a "farce" and did reduce it to "15% of govt employees [having] been granted a paid vacation". There's nothing idiotic about calling it a "shutdown" because of how the term is understood. If you want to choose a different word for you to feel better, go for it.

The important issue is not which position each party holds, it is which strategy they are employing in their attempt to get what they want. And it is the Republican party which adopted the strategy of making the destruction of the baseline (the government shutdown and, possibly, the failure to raise the debt limit and what comes with it) the result of negotiation failure. This, alone, means that we are not in a normal negotiation process. Indeed, in the present case, Republicans want to gain something (the defunding of the ACA) while presenting the maintaining of the baseline (minus the ACA) as the Democrats' "gain", when it isn't an actual gain at all. An actual gain for Democrats would, for example, be the repeal of the sequester. Republicans are therefore clearly to blame here because of the strategy they have chosen to employ.

So you assume that the baseline budget is unchangeable with "normal negotiation processes"? Well, I guess the Democrats need to learn the hard way that it isn't after losing the House in 2010, provided that the whole thing is based on actual partisan ideological differences, which I don't think is the case to put it mildly.

If you don't assume that, then it's obviously the case that both parties are stubborn to a comparable extent, although the Republicans have reduced their demands to a one-year delay of the penalty for not buying out health insurance, which indicates that they weren't really adamant about cutting anything and just wanted to perform political theatre, probably engineered by both parties prior to October to be on the lips of everyone, because one thing is for sure, citizen, you cannot go one day without your wise overlords taking care of you(r pocket).

As far as the term "shutdown" is concerned, you stated that it's okay to use the term if it is to mean something significantly different than what it means in everyday life and in dictionaries. I'm very much okay with that argument of yours ;)

No, I certainly did not say that the baseline budget was unchangeable with normal negotiation processes. I said that the Republicans made the destruction of the baseline the result of negotiation failure, which is completely different.

My point wasn't about the positions on the ACA adopted by the two parties. My point was about the strategy used by Republicans to achieve what they want. Because of their choosing of that strategy, we now have a shutdown and tension over the debt limit. They are therefore clearly the ones to blame.

Merriam-Webster defines shutdown as "the cessation or suspension of an operation or activity". In this case, the exact definition applies, with "except for essential services" added. It's a perfectly fine use of the word.

I don't understand the first paragraph at all.

My take on the second one has been laid out very well by Tom Sowell here.

Which services of the federal govt are essential is purely subjective and therefore unfit for any definition. So, using the first part of your definition, government shutdown is to mean "the cessation or suspension of the government". It's neither ceased nor suspended.

1. Usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that (to simplify) successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but that loss is seen as less important to them than what they gained). In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline, and the cost of the negotiation failure is the destruction of the baseline (the government shutdown and, possibly, the failure to raise the debt limit and what comes with it) .

Indeed, in a normal situation, failure to negotiate/to reach an agreement does not result in the destruction of the baseline - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans).

It is the Republican party which adopted the strategy of making the destruction of the baseline the result of negotiation failure. This, alone, means as I just explained that we are not in a normal negotiation process.Indeed, in the present case, Republicans want to gain something (the defunding of the ACA) while presenting the maintaining of the baseline (minus the ACA) as the Democrats' "gain", when it isn't an actual gain at all. An actual gain for Democrats would, for example, be the repeal of the sequester. Republicans are therefore clearly to blame for the current crisis because of the strategy they've chosen to adopt.

Let's also remark that by making this their general strategy, Republicans have in fact forced Democrats to refuse to accede to their demands, otherwise this would mean Republicans could simply use the same strategy over and over again without Democrats ever gaining anything from acceding to Republican demands.

2. The argument presented by Tom Sowell is that the House has acted within the boundaries of its constitutional authority (which nobody is denying) and has passed a budget funding the government except for the ACA (which nobody is denying). This is somehow supposed to translate into Democrats being the ones we should blame because they refused to sign on to the budget passed by the House. This brilliant analysis conveniently forgets to mention that the Senate also sent a budget to the House funding the government (including funding for the ACA), which the House discarded. According to Sowell's logic of "refusing a budget funding the government makes you the one to blame", Republicans in the House are therefore to blame as well, just as much as Senate Democrats. Of course, Powell is not interested in following his own reasoning as soon as it takes him out of partisan hackery.

Like I just explained in 1., the relevant issue we have to look at to understand who's to blame for the current crisis is who made the destruction of the baseline the result of negotiation failure. The answer is the Republican party. Simple as that. What's more and like I said, they also chose to present the maintaining of the baseline (minus the ACA, which is a gain for them) as a Democratic "gain", which is clearly dishonest in a negotiation context.

3. Definitions are social constructs - they're intersubjective. Which services of the federal government are essential is decided and understood intersubjectively. It's perfectly fit for that definition.

I didn't know the House had rejected a budget proposed by the Senate. If that's the case, you're right that, in accordance with Sowell's reasoning, it means both parties are more or less equally to blame. I happily concede.

It's the last paragraph that I find kinda freaky. In the realm of political philosophy you have anarcho-capitalists on one hand, total statists or anarcho-syndicalists on the other, and all those in between the two extremes and you claim that it's a settled debate about the role of the state (or the federal government for that matter)? I think I must be misunderstanding you, because I can't believe someone could hold that position. I may have strong opinions who's right and who's wrong on this, but I would never claim that there's universal agreement.

I never claimed there was universal agreement on the topic you mention either (or that the debate over the role of the state was settled). What I said was that which services of the government should remain open in the case of a government shutdown was decided intersubjectively, the same way definitions are intersubjective social constructs. Not everyone needs to agree (not even a majority, in fact) on which services are to be considered as essential in the case of a shutdown for them to be recognized as having the said "essential" label on them. And the maintaining of essential services is understood intersubjectively as included in the definition of a shutdown when the term is applied to the government.

Illusion of choice with the fake two party system the outcome will be the same

another great tv-show for brainless rednecks

sure, spend zillions on war, dont have money for health insurance

I find it kind of Ironic that they call it a shutdown as it hasnt been working for decades

Main republican argument against health insurance :

If government runs this - it will be bad and inefficient, because private capitalists make things better

/me looks at current overhead - private insurance companies, private lawyers, private pharma, private education, loosely competitive pricing (due to automatic payback by insurance) , PREFERENTIAL pricing (based on insurance status), scattered providers, disorganized referrals, etc etc etc. And everyone gets a piece of a sick mans money.

sounds like a valid argument, definitely worth shutting down the whole gvt. GG idiots.

I want Russell Brand to be president of the World.

Trotskyism is rulez))))

seems id is hosting the Obamacare site too