U.S. Politics: How bout them apples?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So, in Borsabil's world if someone chooses to be a Fireman or a Police officer they give up their right to vote. If someone takes a job in the DA's office instead of in a defence lawyer's office then they give up their right to vote.

Okee dokee.

There's a kind of elegant symmetry here. Both Borsabil and peterbound appear to believe that whether your employer has a territorial monopoly on the use of force determines whether you're Saved or Damned. For peterbound, it's the former, and for Borsabil, it's the latter.

If only it were possible for there to be a middle ground on this issue!

[Crazydog7]

Nope you're not a taxpayer. If the government were to decide tomorrow to stop deducting taxes from it's workforce and simply pay you the amount of money, minus the 'tax', you get now the net effect on gov finances would be zero. Government workers paying tax is a fiction, it's transferring money from one bucket to another and nothing else.

Can you PM us all with the times you plan to be on the thread pulling stuff out of your ass? I don't generally comment on here because its the same 20 people saying what they always say but this is very entertaining. Sort of reminds me of the "Lumber Boy" thread.

[awesome possum]

And in an election year too. Christmas came early.

I wouldn't count on it mattering much. Most people who don't really pay attention to politics have likely already forgotten the government shutdown that occurred just two months ago. Asking them to remember in November what happened in February - especially when the GOP's constant BUT OBAMA act seems to be sticking - is not something I have faith in.

[Fez]

I wouldn't count on it mattering much. Most people who don't really pay attention to politics have likely already forgotten the government shutdown that occurred just two months ago. Asking them to remember in November what happened in February - especially when the GOP's constant BUT OBAMA act seems to be sticking - is not something I have faith in.

Won't be February though. Last estimate I heard was that Treasury's "extraordinary measures" will take us until at least May. That's getting pretty close to the election at that point.

[karaddin]

Don't give borsabil the credit of assuming he is just trolling, his genuine misogyny and utter contempt for government workers both come across pretty clearly. Apparently the wages you earn in exchange for your labour don't belong to you, they still belong to your employer.

Wasn't he also one who felt supporting apartheid was justified in stopping the greater commie threat, yet somehow a standing army is government overreach? A citizen militia would have done wonderfully at stopping communism!

[awesome possum]

Won't be February though. Last estimate I heard was that Treasury's "extraordinary measures" will take us until at least May. That's getting pretty close to the election at that point.

That's true. I also didn't factor in that it will be in the middle of primary season. I can see several challengers from the Teanuts winning primaries they probably should not because of the "purity testing" going on among the party. And that could lead to a couple Dems winning contests they probably should not.

[lokisnow]

That's true. I also didn't factor in that it will be in the middle of primary season. I can see several challengers from the Teanuts winning primaries they probably should not because of the "purity testing" going on among the party. And that could lead to a couple Dems winning contests they probably should not.

Interestingly, i heard on the radio last summer from an expert following the immigration debate that they didn't expect it to pass until July of 2014, because the republican primaries are over then and votes will miraculously materialize in a 'tack to the center' maneuver by republicans in the House. They actually suggested that quite a lot of legislation could be accomplished in the July-November period before the general election that is normally impossible because the seats are so absurdly safe they have no fear of a general election, and surviving the primary is the only goal.

[Cuellar]

The problem with the "wait until summer" strategy is that the big business donors will flee the republican party if all the tea baggers win the primaries. With the shut down and debt ceiling debacle, I think the Republican strategists already realize they are losing their financial backing.

[Gneisenau]

A minor victory for those who oppose more state surveillance (though I guess most in the USA don't really care):

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/

[TrackerNeil]

So I guess the ring was not cast into the fire after all. Not too surprised. Although perhaps the Ryans and Boehners of the world are trying to walk a tightrope where they hype the fight to the Teahadis but then buckle for something minimal and just tell their idiot caucus that the deal was "conservative."

I think Boehner is willing to "violate" the Hastert rule when he feels not doing so would engender disaster, but otherwise he's going to go along with the caucus. Admittedly, he miscalculated on the shutdown, but I think that mistake makes him even less likely to engage in another hopeless battle.

[alguien]

A minor victory for those who oppose more state surveillance (though I guess most in the USA don't really care):

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/

I was glad to hear this. I think its a conversation that really needs to be had. I wonder how it will progress through the courts. I hear there's already another, similar case about to go to trial in NY.

[Paladin of Ice]

A minor victory for those who oppose more state surveillance (though I guess most in the USA don't really care):

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/

Good. The obsessions with security at any cost and making spy agencies all powerful and completely unaccountable need to go.

[lokisnow]

Good. The obsessions with security at any cost and making spy agencies all powerful and completely unaccountable need to go.

yeah, but the last time anyone wanted to cut the CIA's budget the president was assassinated, so I don't think there's much willpower to do anything about it. ;);)

[Fez]

I think Boehner is willing to "violate" the Hastert rule when he feels not doing so would engender disaster, but otherwise he's going to go along with the caucus. Admittedly, he miscalculated on the shutdown, but I think that mistake makes him even less likely to engage in another hopeless battle.

Boehner's thing isn't even the Hastert rule, its not bringing any legislation that can't pass with only Republican votes. There's quite a lot of stuff the House could've been passing that would've gotten 130-140 Republican votes (Immigration reform would certainly have been one) that never gets brought up either.

[Shryke]

Boehner doesn't want to bring up anything that requires alot of Dem votes to pass.

[The Iceman of the North]

I find the Hastert rule quite interesting. Another quaint little US tradition aimed at undermining democracy in the name of some allusive principle of "check and balance". Whyever would the speaker get to decide what is or isn't taken up for a vote?

[Fez]

I find the Hastert rule quite interesting. Another quaint little US tradition aimed at undermining democracy in the name of some allusive principle of "check and balance". Whyever would the speaker get to decide what is or isn't taken up for a vote?

Is it really a US tradition though? Don't most Prime Ministers decide what their parliaments vote on (and hence why losing a vote so often triggers a vote of no confidence )?

[Gneisenau]

Is it really a US tradition though? Don't most Prime Ministers decide what their parliaments vote on (and hence why losing a vote so often triggers a vote of no confidence )?

I believe certain legislation, namely any bill that spend money are always considered confidence votes and their defeat would trigger an election or government reform.

[lokisnow]

Bought me some Obamacare. I don't qualify for subsidies. I wound up getting a silver plan because the bronze plans are all inherently garbage. Interestingly, the catastrophic plan is much, much better (at least in california) than the bronze plans, I cannot imagine why anyone would purchase a bronze plan instead of a catastrophic. The bronze plans force you to continue paying after you meet your deductible, the catastrophic plans don't, and the difference in deductible is only 1300. You could be out for 5 figures with the bronze plans, but capped on the catastrophic. Neither the bronze plans nor the catastrophic plans actually cover any health care whatsoever before you hit the deductible, so if you plan on actually using any health care, you pretty much have to go up to silver, because otherwise you're paying your monthly premium plus 100% of all health care expenses until you hit the deductible (really look at the bronze and catastrophic, they cover nothing whatsoever, the only difference is 1300 in the deductible amount). So it is utterly pointless to have bronze or catastrophic other than as protection against force majeure (and even then you're basically financially wiped out by the 6300 or 5000 deductible, lol, nobody buying a C or B plan has that vast an amount in savings, might as well declare bankruptcy).

Actual health insurance doesn't start until you reach the silver level (the bronze and catastrophic plans are just the old fashioned fake health insurance with baseline standards, which I suppose is a nice improvement on the status quo), so that's what I got, it was nice to see that at that level plans start having co-pays and such like so that you don't have to pay 100% of all health care plus your monthly premium. Not that your deductible goes down, but at least you're no longer forced to pay 100% of all health care. It's about 440$ more per annum, so not that big a difference from the B&C plans, for a plan that 10,000x better. It is a shame my current catastrophic plan (with copays and such like) is going away, but the overall system seems to be better and I'm very glad to have transitioned from a health insurance system with no standards to a health insurance system with standards.

[The Iceman of the North]

Is it really a US tradition though? Don't most Prime Ministers decide what their parliaments vote on (and hence why losing a vote so often triggers a vote of no confidence )?

Not to my knowledge. I assume that most parliamentary systems allows all MPs to make proposals. Do you have any examples of a system where the PM controls what are voted on?