US Politics: Corporations are made out of people

[OnionAhaiReborn]

On the stimulus vote- there were options other than compromising to get 3 Republican votes. My favorite would have been eliminating the filibuster off the bat, granted that that was extremely unlikely to happen at that point in time. But I think they easily could have put public pressure on Senate Republicans to drop the filibuster of the stimulus. "The economy is shambles and the Republicans won't allow a yes or no vote in the Senate," how easy a message is that to repeat ad nauseam on cable news until they cave? I do not believe they could have withstood the pressure. Finally, and I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me if they were able to ultimately pass the ACA using reconciliation and 51 votes they should have been able to do the same with stimulus. I think they didn't do any of this because Obama wanted a bipartisan victory, at nearly any cost, early on.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

They voted for the stimulus, but their votes weren't needed. Well except Specter's, but once he switched parties he was a major team player because he wanted/needed help so badly for his campaign. The initial stimulus bill maybe couldn't have been much higher, but they could've and should've structured it so that it did more immediate things, and then they should've passed another bill in summer of 2009. Remember, Arlen Specter switched parties on April 28 and Ted Kennedy didn't die until August 25, for those four months Democrats had the 60 votes to do whatever their right flank was willing to do. Lieberman, Landeriu, Blanche, et al. weren't willing to go for single payer, but they supported economic stuff; remember they voted for the initial stimulus as well.

As for the ACA, it helps people weather the economy now, but the law did literally nothing when it was first passed. It was all delayed effects. The most minor of its reforms didn't take effect until Jan 1. 2011, which was already after the election.

Democrats didn´t have anywhere close to 4 months. They had 6 weeks with Kennedy slowly dying.

[Athias]

Americans still poll negatively about the law. Admittedly, much of that comes from sheer ignorance, but there you are. I have no reason to believe Americans would have been less ignorant about the ACA in 2010 than they are now.

Or maybe there are those who'd rather not be penalized for exercising a choice in what they consume.

[Shryke]

Or maybe there are those who'd rather not be penalized for exercising a choice in what they consume.

I'm sure we'd all like to consume the flesh of people we've freshly murdered, but sadly the "law" seems bond and determined to penalize us all for exercising a choice in what we consume.

[Athias]

I'm sure we'd all like to consume the flesh of people we've freshly murdered, but sadly the "law" seems bond and determined to penalize us all for exercising a choice in what we consume.

So exercising a decision on whether to opt for a state-sanctioned health insurance policy is equivalent to consuming flesh? Or are you merely bolstering the integrity of "law" because, without it, we'd suffer from cannibalism?

[Otho Bracken]

6/30: "Murrieta Mayor Alan Long urged residents to fight a plan to fly migrant families from Texas for processing at a border patrol facility in his city as police start a hotline and prepare to field questions about the transfers."

7/4: "The city's mayor became a hero to those seeking stronger immigration policies with his criticism of the federal government's efforts to handle the thousands of immigrants, many of them mothers and children, who have flooded the Texas border.

However, a message subsequently posted on the Murrieta city website by City Manager Rick Dudley said that Mayor Alan Long was only asserting that the local Border Patrol station was not an appropriate location for that purpose and was encouraging the community to contact its federal representatives.

The statement, suggesting that protesters had come from elsewhere in Southern California, expressed regret that the busloads of women and children had been forced to turn around."

-------------

Mayor Long saw an opportunity to throw some red meat to the base, but got in way over his head. Now his city is filled with protesters on all sides and the residents are pissed at him for poking the hornet's nest. Ooops!

[Shryke]

So exercising a decision on whether to opt for a state-sanctioned health insurance policy is equivalent to consuming flesh? Or are you merely bolstering the integrity of "law" because, without it, we'd suffer from cannibalism?

I'm pointing out that your comment is nonsensically broad and meaningless.

[Athias]

I'm pointing out that your comment is nonsensically broad and meaningless.

It wasn't "nonsensically" broad. The statement was made in reference to TrackerNeil's statement. That is why I quoted it. You've pointed out nothing.

[MerenthaClone]

Or maybe there are those who'd rather not be penalized for exercising a choice in what they consume.

You're right. Abolish the ACA, raise taxes, and enact a single-payer UHS system. Whee! Everyone gets what they want.

[Shryke]

It wasn't "nonsensically" broad. The statement was made in reference to TrackerNeil's statement. That is why I quoted it. You've pointed out nothing.

It was made in reference to TN's post, yes. Using a reasoning so broad it covers everything up to and including cannibalism.

It's like a textbook case of nonsensically over-broad.

[TrackerNeil]

On the stimulus vote- there were options other than compromising to get 3 Republican votes. My favorite would have been eliminating the filibuster off the bat, granted that that was extremely unlikely to happen at that point in time. But I think they easily could have put public pressure on Senate Republicans to drop the filibuster of the stimulus. "The economy is shambles and the Republicans won't allow a yes or no vote in the Senate," how easy a message is that to repeat ad nauseam on cable news until they cave? I do not believe they could have withstood the pressure. Finally, and I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me if they were able to ultimately pass the ACA using reconciliation and 51 votes they should have been able to do the same with stimulus. I think they didn't do any of this because Obama wanted a bipartisan victory, at nearly any cost, early on.

Although I support the abolition of the filibuster, that wasn't up to Barack Obama, and even Harry Reid would have had a hard time getting his caucus to vote on so unprecedented a measure. As to reconciliation, that's a very limited option, and one of those limits is that bills passed through reconciliation cannot increase the deficit over ten years. I doubt the stimulus would have met that criterion.

Or maybe there are those who'd rather not be penalized for exercising a choice in what they consume.

Look, Athias, I'm not debating the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act, except to say that there are those who feel that they should contribute to the cost of their health care and those who think they should be permitted to free-ride on the system. Those of us in the former camp have won, and the latter can either get a damned insurance policy, pay the penalty, or move to some third-world country where they are free to die untreated on the street.

[Athias]

Look, Athias, I'm not debating the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act, except to say that there are those who feel that they should contribute to the cost of their health care and those who think they should be permitted to free-ride on the system. Those of us in the former camp have won, and the latter can either get a damned insurance policy, pay the penalty, or move to some third-world country where they are free to die untreated on the street.

Is it your argument that everyone who does not opt for state-approved or state-manipulated policy is "free-riding" the system?

The problem with asserting that one should "move to some third-world country..." is that it presupposes that one can displace oneself with all of one's possessions. It requires that one can back out of a state-contract with all legitimately owned property. How does one displace a house? There are also restrictions on emigration, where taxes may be imposed.

Your argument, TrackerNeil, is a cop-out. There's nothing wrong with raising issues about an arrangement without wanting to leave it. Merely stating that if one doesn't accept the current system, they can "die untreated on the street," is a non-sequitur that fails to address the actual objection--unless said objection is one's inability to leave. Why are people being penalized for not wanting to be a party to this Affordable Care Act? Why is it a referendum on a person abiding by terms, as opposed to the terms themselves?

[TrueMetis]

Because societal contract, you can vote against it but if you lose you have to accept it or leave. And if you leave you don't get to take all of the thing being in that society got you with you.

[Athias]

Because societal contract, you can vote against it but if you lose you have to accept it or leave. And if you leave you don't get to take all of the thing being in that society got you with you.

In other words, one's propriety is dictated not by principle--or any moral/ethical validation--but one's ability to solicit a majority vote? So then if one fails to succeed in this gambit, by "societal" contract he/she should either leave and forfeit all property or just "put up with it?"

[davos]

In retrospect, the Dems in 2009-10 would have been better off pushing through as much solid legislation as they could including an ACA not throughly watered down in an attempt to get some Republicans on board, knowing from both history and the political situation that they were likely to take a beating in 2010 that could be recovered from and then some as those policies paid off. It would have taken a leader of extraordinary couragr, vision, and cynacism to recognize the reality at that time. The Dems from Obama down wanted to to use their victory to get the other side to make deals and build compromise bipartisan legislation like has been normal procedure since the cival war. They didn't understand, and couldn't reasonably be expected to, that the GOP was abandoning even the pretext of the old political culture.

[BloodRider]

Yes, it's true that for four months the Democrats could have thwarted any filibuster, but it's hard to get big legislation ramped up, written, and passed in that time.

Right. It's not like they knew they had four months, and farted around. I am sure they were counting on 60 votes till the next election.

[BloodRider]

In other words, one's propriety is dictated not by principle--or any moral/ethical validation--but one's ability to solicit a majority vote? So then if one fails to succeed in this gambit, by "societal" contract he/she should either leave and forfeit all property or just "put up with it?"

Isn't that exactly the answer Berts give when a worker or employee dares to question thier feudal lord employer? Just find another job? Goose, gander, etc., etc.

[Shryke]

In retrospect, the Dems in 2009-10 would have been better off pushing through as much solid legislation as they could including an ACA not throughly watered down in an attempt to get some Republicans on board, knowing from both history and the political situation that they were likely to take a beating in 2010 that could be recovered from and then some as those policies paid off. It would have taken a leader of extraordinary couragr, vision, and cynacism to recognize the reality at that time. The Dems from Obama down wanted to to use their victory to get the other side to make deals and build compromise bipartisan legislation like has been normal procedure since the cival war. They didn't understand, and couldn't reasonably be expected to, that the GOP was abandoning even the pretext of the old political culture.

No, it would have taken a different reality.

Like, let's not forget here that the GOP wasn't voting for much legislation period. Certainly not health care reform. They were just filibustering.

Legislation was watered down because, due to the filibuster, they had to scrape together every single Dem vote in the Senate. And to do that, they needed to water down shit pretty hard.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Isn't that exactly the answer Berts give when a worker or employee dares to question thier feudal lord employer? Just find another job? Goose, gander, etc., etc.

Athias is not a libertarian. He's a full on anarchist. He stated such in the drunk driving thread.

[Shryke]

In other words, one's propriety is dictated not by principle--or any moral/ethical validation--but one's ability to solicit a majority vote? So then if one fails to succeed in this gambit, by "societal" contract he/she should either leave and forfeit all property or just "put up with it?"

Yes. Welcome to civilization.

In a democratic system, the people who win the vote get to enact policy (potentially within certain prescribed guidelines)

Athias is not a libertarian. He's a full on anarchist. He stated such in the drunk driving thread.

That makes sense.